Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railway Rolling Stock

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom retains the ability to build railway carriage body shells.

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the British Railways Board to announce the result of the tender process for new trains under the recent£150 million leasing facility.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): The Government are providing record levels of financial support from the public purse. In 1992–93, British Rail investment stood at the highest level for more than 30 years. Investment of more than £3 billion is planned over the next three years, £2 billion of which will be on the existing railway. Later in the summer, British Rail will place the order for the £150 million leasing facility for new rolling stock, which we proposed in advance of privatisation. We have also recently announced measures to encourage the development of a rolling stock leasing market.

Mr. Bayley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have already been 532 casualties of railways privatisation, in terms of the number of jobs lost at the York carriage works because of lack of orders, and a further 364 redundancies at other Asea Brown Boveri factories around the country? Is he further aware that ABB is the last surviving rail company in Britain which manufactures railway bodyshells, and that unless the Government ensure that the company receives orders extremely quickly the York works will close? We shall then have to import railway bodyshells from abroad—at huge cost to our balance of payments—and commuters in the south-east will not get the decent, modern trains that they are looking for, deserve and want.

Mr. MacGregor: First, those redundancies have nothing to do with privatisation. Even if we had not put forward our reform proposals, the position, which is largely to do with the recession and the switch in priorities in British Rail investment, would be the same. I am aware of the situation at ABB, and have had recent discussions with the company. I hope that British Rail will proceed as soon as possible with the decision to be taken on the £150

million leasing proposals, and I have urged it to do so. It is for British Rail to decide where that order should be placed.

Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend urge British Rail to get its act together and place the order for the new trains for the Kent link line with ABB York as quickly as possible? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of the ABB York workshop depends not only on that order, but on the new leasing market for trains and an increase in orders from overseas railway operators? Would not it help ABB's export drive if British Rail were to place the order now and demonstrate its confidence in the excellent ABB work force?

Mr. MacGregor: I know of, and pay tribute to, the interest that my hon. Friend has taken in ABB. I also pay tribute to the huge improvements in ABB's productivity since it went into the private sector. The prospects of ABB securing overseas orders are greater now as a result of that improvement in productivity. It should be asked why it was unable to compete in international markets much earlier.
I hope that British Rail will reach its decision as quickly as possible. The choice of where investment lies is, however, for British Rail. The tendering process is now under way. I hope that the tenders will be in very shortly and that British Rail will make its decision as speedily as it can. I entirely agree about the importance of moving to a private sector leasing market. That will be concentrated on rolling stock, and we have been developing our plans for that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister knows that £150 million is less than half of what is needed for new rolling stock and that it will not meet the cost of existing orders that British Rail is ready to place. Why does the Minister not admit, honestly, that other nations that have privatised their railways, like the Swedes, have accepted that they can do so only with massive investment in new rolling stock? How does the Minister think that his shadow organisations will create one penny more for investment when he knows that only more money will create new jobs and better rolling stock?

Mr. MacGregor: By attracting private sector capital to the future leasing market. Current investment is at record levels. British Rail investment is more than 50 per cent. greater in real terms than it was in 1979, and one and a half times greater than in 1969. British Rail has given priority in its current programme to infrastructure and signalling, but in recent years there has been a substantial investment in rolling stock—something like 90 per cent. of rolling stock in the regional railways is less than eight years old—and that must be taken into account when looking at the priorities.

Mr. Waller: My right hon. Friend may be aware that go-ahead is anxiously awaited for the leasing scheme for rolling stock on the Leeds-Bradford, Airedale and Wharfdale lines. Will he note that the go-ahead for that scheme would provide a valuable boost for the British train manufacturing industry and anxiously awaited new trains for a line, which is well used and would otherwise have to use 30-year-old stock?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the situation. My right hon. friend the Minister for Public transport has taken a


very close interest in the matter. There is to be a debate on the subject on Wednesday and my right hon. Friend will give a full reply then.

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the blame does not lie with British Rail or the engineering company but with the Government, because they have accepted a tendered contract for the north-west line and Network SouthEast, which finished in December last year? The Government ordered a review and re-tendering. That delay has led to hundreds of workers being put out of work. Perhaps he will tell us how much more the re-tendering will cost the Government. Will it be between£10 million and£100 million?

Mr. MacGregor: No. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the two alternatives for the£150 million rolling stock—the ICC 225s for the west coast main line and the Networkers—that is a new order. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the decision on the ICC 225 or 250, the 225 was chosen. That reflects the fact that there has been a substantial decrease in British Rail's revenue as a result of the recession, which is probably more to do with present rolling stock investment than anything else. But there are also advantages in going for the ICC 225, because it has been impressed on me by rolling stock manufacturers that long runs of existing locomotives can often be a much more cost-effective way to deliver new orders.

Sir Roger Moate: Can my right hon. Friend confirm reports that his Department sees a strong economic case for both those contenders for the£150 million in the Network SouthEast programme and the west coast main line and that the 150 million is to be seen as the first stage of a continuing ordering programme, because that is what travellers on British Rail want and what the industry needs?

Mr. MacGregor: Of course, one would wish to undertake several areas of investment, and my hon. Friend is right that one would wish both to be done as soon as possible, but for the£150 million it will be a choice between the two tenders. My hon. Friend must realise that I cannot predict the outcome of future public expenditure rounds. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) must realise that one has to take into account overall public expenditure when making any decisions where public money is involved. However, we shall have to consider whether there would be an opportunity to repeat that kind of leasing operation or whether we should look entirely to the private sector which will finance future orders.

Air Pollution (Ferrybridge)

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received details of the study to measure air pollution in the Ferrybridge area along the roads of the AI and M62; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): The air pollution study has been commissioned to start later this summer when traffic flows will be at their peak. It will last for several weeks and preliminary results should be available before the end of the year.

Mr. O'Brien: May I welcome the Minister to his new post and hope that with a new Minister we shall get some

fresh ideas on highway development in the Ferrybridge area? The study to which the Minister refers is very important because there is a plan for a 16-lane motorway to go through a conurbation 250 yd from a large junior and infant school, with a large mixed estate of council and private houses to the east, and a large housing estate to the west, less than 200 yd from the motorway. Does the Minister accept that an in-depth study is needed, and will he agree that that study will be made available for public consultation? If the proposals put forward by the Department of Transport are allowed to go ahead, we shall have the most polluted mile of motorway in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister assure me that the consultation document will be made public?

Mr. Key: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is a pleasure to do business with him again. It takes us back to the golden days of the Local Government Finance Bill, when we enjoyed so many happy hours.
The hon. Gentleman would expect me to have done my homework on this matter. He has been a strong advocate on behalf of people on the Darrington and Limetrees estate in that corner of Pontefract. There has already been substantial investigation into the matter and the air pollution study is yet another investigation. We expect to publish draft orders in the next 12 to 18 months, which will give another opportunity to look at the matter. The preferred route, which has been announced, provides the best value for money, the least environmental impact, the greatest traffic relief to residents of Ferrybridge and Brotherton, and is supported by the majority of residents there.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the general point of controlling and reducing air pollution, the Government's commitment to catalytic converters, the greater use of unleaded petrol, and new proposals to get more freight off the roads and on to the railways is absolutely clear?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has catalogued a number of the Government's successes. He may have omitted one or two, however. I remind him of the tighter emission limits for new heavy duty diesels from 1 October 1993. Neither should we forget noise pollution which, from new motor vehicles, has been reduced by up to 10 decibels through tighter standards between 1980 and 1990. That is just for starters.

Merchant Fleet

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to encourage the growth of the British merchant fleet; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): The Government remain committed to creating a trading climate in which the United Kingdom shipping industry has the opportunity to compete fairly. In support of that, in the recent past we have taken a number of initiatives within the European Economic Community and in the International Maritime Organisation.

Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us involved in the British shipping industry welcome the recent initiatives taken by him and his colleagues? At the


same time, does he accept that the British merchant fleet is still at a significant fiscal disadvantage compared with many of its competitors? Will he make representations to the Economic Secretary about such matters as first year capital allowances and rollover relief?

Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the sterling work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken, and I am sure that the Economic Secretary will have noted his remarks about capital allowances and rollover relief. When one considers the economic framework within which British shipping has to compete, it is worth noting that corporation tax rates in Britain are the lowest of all the G7 countries and that low interest and inflation rates contribute towards creating a climate in which British shipping can compete.

Ms Walley: Does the Minister realise that the British merchant fleet is now as low as 291? For all the commercial reasons to which he has referred, is there not also a strong defence reason for keeping a merchant fleet? Instead of paying lip service to stopping the merchant fleet from sinking, will he join us, and ensure that his colleagues join us in Committee, to ensure that something will be done to stop the merchant fleet sinking?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport because it was during his presidency of the Transport Council that resolutions were put forward allowing the Council to reach agreements on a common policy on safe shipping at the Luxembourg meeting on 7 June. That is a major step forward because sub-standard shipping is an urgent problem in terms of the safety of human life and the environment. That is where important results will occur, not least in narrowing the gap between the cost currently borne by the British shipping industry in enforcing high standards and the lower costs currently borne by countries that enforce regulations less rigorously. The hon. Lady may like to pay a little more attention to that.

Mr. Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for spelling out the successful actions that the Government have taken to ensure safety in the merchant fleet. Does he agree that, however right it may be in principle, the policy of trying to achieve a level playing field with our European competitors has not yet delivered that for our merchant fleet? That is why Conservative Members also support fiscal measures to give the British merchant fleet a competitive position.

Mr. Norris: If we followed my hon. Friend's argument and offered as much state aid to our fleet as is offered elsewhere, we would enter the inevitable spiral of ever-increasing state aid to industry. That would not benefit our economy or any other economy. The answer must be to eliminate the state aids in other countries which currently distort the market.

East Coast Main Line

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has held with local authorities in north-east Scotland relating to InterCity services on the east coast main line.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I last discussed InterCity services on the east coast main line with representatives of Grampian regional council on Wednesday 23 June.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister aware that a spokesman for Richard Branson recently announced that Virgin is investigating the cost of purchasing the east coast main line service between London and Edinburgh? Does he agree that that confirms, first, the private sector's complete lack of interest in the other part of that service—the through diesel service between London and Aberdeen—and, secondly, that companies such as Virgin are interested only in running fast trains, with few stops, for the cream of the customer load? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if he persists with the market testing of railway services, the only and inevitable result will be fewer trains, worse services and the break-up of the national railway network?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman well knows that we are not intending to franchise the east coast main line on the basis of only the service between London and Edinburgh. I have made it abundantly clear that all British Rail's services to Inverness and Aberdeen will be franchised. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal more for the cause of electrification of the east coast main line to Aberdeen if he started supporting the economy of Scotland and stopped supporting the job wreckers at Timex in Dundee.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fears expressed about privatisation of the east coast main line are precisely the sort of fears that were expressed about other industry privatisations—yet those have led to better services, not worse—

Madam Speaker: Order. The question is about what discussions the Minister has had with local authorities in north-east Scotland.

Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authority in Aberdeen has even privatised its bus service? Is it not clear that local authorities in Scotland recognise that privatisation leads to better services at less cost to the consumer?

Mr. Freeman: I confirm that those local authorities to which I have spoken welcome the prospect of improved quality and quantity of services that our reforms will bring.

Mrs. Ewing: Does the Minister accept that as well as meeting representatives of Grampian regional council he must also meet representatives of the Highlands regional council and the surrounding districts? The lines to which he referred are vital to the economy of that area, given that Aberdeen is the oil capital of Scotland and Inverness is the tourist and whisky capital and the fact that there are also fish and food processing exports? The freight aspect of the line is vital to the area's future economy, and no doubt it is also of importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Freeman: I hope to meet representatives of Highland regional council in September to discuss our proposals for the railway industry in its part of the world. The prospect of introducing additional private sector


capital means that there is an opportunity to enhance rather than reduce services in the hon. Lady's part of the world.

Motorways

Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of drivers (a) regularly use motorways and (b) never use motorways.

Mr. MacGregor: Surveys indicate that about half of drivers never or rarely use motorways.

Mr. Taylor: That interesting statistic illustrates why it is important that the 50 per cent. of drivers who use the motorways regularly should be asked to contribute more so that those roads can be improved. Our experience of the success of the Dartford crossing, where private venture capital was used, shows that private finance in motorway construction can play a great role in ensuring that we get the roads that people want and that traffic moves properly and does not go on to the side roads.

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I am canvassing those issues in relation to the Green Paper on better motorways and the possibility of charging a toll. My hon. Friend is right in the sense that no decision has been taken, but one of the issues put forward is whether we can accelerate the improvement in motorways. That is not least because, in this country as in others, we run the risk of greater congestion with an increase in traffic. Therefore, we wish to accelerate the improvement by widening motorways and improving the services on them through additional finance raised by a modest charge.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the charge needs to be modest to avoid diversion on to local roads. One of the arguments for that is the fact that about half of all motorists hardly ever or never use the motorways.

Mr. Prescott: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his absurd policy of cutting the investment level for both British Rail and underground services by nearly£1 billion, and the reinvestment of that money on the M25, will result in that road being widened to 14 or even 20 lanes to cope with the extra cars created by that stupid transport policy?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to describe the policy as stupid. Presumably he means that he wants to restrict people's use of cars and heavy goods vehicles by fiat from Whitehall. That does not make any sense. Otherwise, what does a centralised transport policy mean?
The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the balance of Government expenditure. Although 90 per cent. of all inland passenger and freight traffic goes by road, we are spending about 56 per cent. of Government expenditure on roads and 44 per cent. on public transport—including rail—this year. That is a clear indication that Government expenditure is, if anything, skewed heavily towards public transport and rail.

Selby Bypass

Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what scope exists for expediting the publication of the necessary draft compulsory purchase orders for the construction of the Selby bypass.

Mr. Key: Bearing in mind the total amount of work in hand, preparation of this scheme is progressing towards publication of the draft compulsory purchase order as quickly as possible.

Mr. Alison: As there has been some slippage in the Selby bypass project, will my hon. Friend confirm that that project is now irreversible and will not be subject to either cancellation or postponement due to any internal departmental budgetary reassessment?

Mr. Key: I certainly hope that it will not, as the scheme has been in the programme since about 1984. I well understand my hon. Friend's concern, but we are continuing preparations for the scheme. I shall use my best endeavours to keep up the momentum and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him when we meet on 12 July.

West Coast Main Line

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss services on the west coast main line.

Mr. Freeman: I met the senior management of the west coast main line in Birmingham on June 18 and I reaffirmed my support for improvement of the west coast main line, infrastructure and rolling stock for the whole of the route.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The managing director of the west coast main line, Mr. Ivor Warburton, has told the west coast main line all-party group that without substantial investment during the next 18 months there will be a "catastrophic failure" of track and/or signalling on that route. In the light of the Minister's letter of 23 June to the chairman of the all-party group, how does he propose to maintain the rail links to and from Europe for the industrial heartlands of the west midlands, the north-west and as far as Glasgow if the private sector fails to provide the necessary capital investment to effect the improvements?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will know that British Rail is to start design work for improving the signalling on the west coast main line this year, and will commence the work next year.
I agree with both the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Ivor Warburton about private sector investment. A satisfactory formula for private sector investment—particularly in signalling, which does not count as public expenditure—would be welcome. I hope that by early autumn we shall have resolved a correct formula for the introduction of private sector capital. British Rail and Railtrack will then be able to place a contract for investment in the line. That will advance the date on which we can say truthfully that the west coast main line is the premier route in the country.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the House that in bygone years the Great Western railway was the very best in the country? If one travelled on the Great Western, one travelled first class in every department. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we mean business about attracting the Olympic games to Manchester, we need a good west coast main line with good rolling stock? Does he agree that it is important that the InterCity 225


rolling stock is obtained for the western line? Will my right hon. Friend continue his good work and ensure that the money comes to the west coast main line?

Mr. Freeman: Clearly, some of the rolling stock on the west coast main line—in particular, that which is now 30 years old—is badly in need of replacement. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, British Rail is considering placing an order. Whatever the results of that exercise, my hon. Friend knows that I am committed to work with British Rail for further orders so long as they comply fully with the Treasury guidelines on what is an operating lease. The Treasury gave the criteria for such operating leases in the latter half of last month. I hope, therefore, that it will be a question not of Networkers or 225s but of both.

Mr. Harvey: Given that we know that west coast main line passengers must expect franchised services at some stage, will the Government take this opportunity to clarify the welcome but rather ambiguous undertaking given during the Report stage of the Railways Bill that franchise agreements will require
participation in discount schemes for senior citizens, the disabled and young people"?
Is that not in marked contrast to the specific commitment that railcards for disabled people would be
on broadly similar lines to present arrangements"?—[Official Report, 25, May 1993; Vol. 225, 762–63.]
Given the worries that have been expressed since then by British Rail and other groups, will the Minister clear the matter up for us? Will participation be at about the same cost and bring about the same benefits as existing schemes and will the schemes be universal?

Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made it plain on Report—[Interruption.] He did. My right hon. Friend made it plain that the franchising director would require all franchises in Great Britain to include discount railcards for the disabled, young people and elderly people. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that the great advantage of those discounts—which we firmly believe that the market will provide—will be retained. We decided to require the franchising director to write that requirement into each franchise.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent letter of 23 June to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) alluded. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, among many important points, the letter says that when cross-subsidisation between rail lines no longer exists, there will be revenue support for such main lines, as required?

Mr. Freeman: I can certainly confirm that routes—for example, possibly the west coast main line—will qualify for support by the franchising director if they require subsidy. At present, InterCity has a commercial remit. Profitable routes such as the east coast main line cross-subsidise others such as the west coast main line. The Conservative party believes that where public money is to be used, we should all know precisely where that money goes. We have given every assurance that whether the service is InterCity, Regional Railways or Network SouthEast, it will continue to receive support if it is socially desirable.

Mr. Wilson: Would not the people who use the west coast main line and, indeed, those who use other main lines in need of investment be better served if the Government instructed or allowed British Rail to invest in the future of those lines instead of constantly spending money on restructuring? Will the Minister confirm that, by next April, having recently undergone a major reorganisation, British Rail will have to divide itself into no fewer than 65 companies comprising 26 train companies, 10 rail track companies, 16 infrastructure companies, three train leasing companies and 10 commercial service groups in order to meet the Government's privatisation plans? How much will all that cost? Will the right hon. Gentleman express that figure as a percentage of the£170 million that British Rail has apparently lost in the last year? Will the Minister bear in mind that whereas workers at Timex face a£60 a week loss, he has just given Railtrack's three-day-a-week chairman a£100,000 increase?

Mr. Freeman: The chairman-designate of Railtrack, Mr. Bob Horton, is excellent value for money. He is already planning with his staff for the commencement, subject to Parliament's approval, of Railtrack on 1 April next year. As to British Rail's organisation, the hon. Gentleman should realise that British Rail already runs its passenger operations on the basis of 26 profit centres; there are another nine freight profit centres, and so on. That is how modern industry is organised. As I travel the country—sometimes ahead of the hon. Gentleman, sometimes behind him—visiting profit centres, I find that morale among senior British Rail managers is excellent now. They are getting on with the job of preparing the rail industry for its reorganisation and improvement.

Trunk Roads (Maintenance)

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to reduce delays caused by maintenance work on the trunk road network during the summer months.

Mr. Key: All our programmed maintenance work is carefully planned and co-ordinated to minimise delays, using lane rental contracts wherever possible.

Mr. Lidington: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of my constituents who use the M40 and Western avenue have to tolerate extremely long delays caused by major and minor road works? Will he do everything in his power, including using lane rental and other incentives, to ensure that delays are kept to the absolute minimum?

Mr. Key: Yes, I certainly will. Contractors must display signs explaining the presence of cones where no work appears to be in progress. My hon. Friend's constituents can help to achieve the objective that both he and I want to achieve. Under the citizens charter, a system exists for cone hotlines, whereby if members of the travelling public see lengths of motorway or road coned off unnecessarily, they have only to telephone 071 276 3000 and a written explanation will be available.

Mr. Pike: Although there have been some improvements in the way in which road works are undertaken, misleading signs still appear and, despite the Minister's remarks, many motorists will be unable to act in the way that he suggested. The appearance of signs giving misleading information leads to genuine speed limit and


other warnings being disregarded. It is the Department's responsibility to ensure that accurate speed limit and other restrictive signs are used and that it is made clear when they no longer apply.

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we are here to help. If the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other members of the travelling public see misleading signs, I hope that they will contact us. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman imagines that the travelling public do not have access to the telephone system—although not necessarily from their cars. It is important to work on the problems together. It is no use blaming someone else. Let us try to sort out those problems sensibly.

Jubilee Line Extension

Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a start can be expected for the Jubilee line docklands extension.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that work will be completed on the Jubilee line extension.

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will authorise the start of construction once negotiations between London Transport and the parties involved with the financing of Canary Wharf on the basis of their contribution to the Jubilee line extension have been satisfactorily concluded. It is planned that the line will be operational 53 months after the start of construction.

Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend confirm the Government's commitment to the scheme and urge all the parties involved to reach agreement on the funding package so that the start can be brought forward to the earliest possible date, for the obvious economic benefit of docklands and of my constituents, who hope to be involved in the line's construction?

Mr. Norris: Yes, I can confirm that the Government are fully committed to their contribution, once negotiations with the private sector on its contribution are complete.

Mr. Banks: It is not much use the Minister saying when he thinks that the line will be finished when he cannot even tell us when he thinks that work on it will start. We have been waiting for that for ages and ages. It is about time that the Minister got his finger out and gave a date for the actual start.
Is the Minister aware that there is a phrase for people who always tempt but never get around to delivering? They are called political teasers. The Minister should stop dangling the prospect in front of us and tell us when work on the Jubilee line extension will start.

Mr. Norris: That is yet another inviting prospect from the hon. Gentleman, but in all seriousness he knows the answer to the questions that he poses. The Government have clearly stated that the private sector should contribute a substantial amount of money towards that line because of the considerable value that is conveyed by it to those property owners who are contributing. I think that the whole House will accept that that means that about£400 million, which is to go into the scheme, is coming from those who will benefit as developers of property rather than from hard-pressed taxpayers.
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is inviting us to forget that and simply to say that the Government will find the entire contribution. That is lamentable. No Government can act so irresponsibly. These negotiations have taken time, but I trust that they will be satisfactorily concluded. When they are, the Government are committed to making their contribution, to ensure that the line can be constructed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Market Testing

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparisons he has made between the costs arising from the implementation of market testing over each of the last two years and the savings arising therefrom.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. William Waldegrave): Annual returns from Departments indicate that in previous years savings arising from market testing have typically been around 25 per cent. of the original cost, even when the activity has remained in-house.
I shall report on the costs and savings arising in the current period, which runs until September 1993, as soon as possible after that date.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for his helpful answer. Does he not think it extraordinary that although certain Labour-controlled councils take on competitive tendering with great gusto, which results in enormous savings, the Opposition Front Bench has no enthusiasm whatsoever for market testing?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. Labour authorities thoughout the country have found, after resisting a great deal at the beginning, that there is great benefit for their local taxpayers and for those who use local services in buying in services that can better be provided by the private sector.

Mr. Garrett: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to market test the jobs of grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 civil servants, or is market testing a mandarin-free zone?

Mr. Waldegrave: I look forward to discussing those matters with the hon. Gentleman in the Select Committee. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that an increasing number of grade 1 and 2 jobs have been put out to open tender. We have thrown it open to competition. Two people, of permanent secretary rank, have come in by that route.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend extend market testing to ensure that when civil service jobs are about to be moved from one constituency to another area, the civil servants who are doing those jobs are given the opportunity to bid for them under private management?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and constructive point. It is part of the policy that we should enable civil servants to show, as they often can, that they can do the jobs very well, both by management buy-outs, which sometimes they have achieved, or by straight in-house bids, and sometimes by transferring successfully—as, for example, at Devonport dockyard—to private sector contractors and working very well with those private sector employers.

Ms Mowlam: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced that he believes that there is a cost saving of about 25 per cent. in the civil service as a result of market testing. Can he confirm that there is no evidence to suggest that that 25 per cent. cost saving is the result of internal efficiency—as would be the case with many Labour local authorities, if they were allowed to make the decision at local level, as opposed to being dictated to by central Government at Westminster—but that it is solely as a result of cutting wages and changing the terms and conditions of civil servants? That is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's market testing. There has been no increase in the quality of service.

Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Lady has got her brief back to front. The wages issue is normally raised by local authorities. Labour local authorities have got used to compulsory competitive tendering. can give the hon. Lady one example. It happens to be the latest. RAF Finningly has stated that it expects to achieve savings of£3·5 million in the first year, 1993, and£29 million over 10 years through efficiency savings, including market testing of the technical maintenance of aircraft. That represents between 20 and 25 per cent., which is exactly the point that the hon. Lady does not understand. She will find that it has nothing to do with pay. It is the result of greater efficiency in the organisation of the function.

Citizens Charter

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total number of civil servants engaged in activities subject to citizens charters.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): The charter approach is integral to the delivery of public services. Many civil and other public servants are now involved with the charter programme as part of their normal duties. The citizens charter unit in the Cabinet Office has 32 staff.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he, perhaps like me, concerned that our business community will soon need its own charter to protect it from the growth in the inspectorates that are now visiting it almost daily: environmental health inspectors, agricultural inspectors, safety at work inspectors and weights and measures inspectors—you name it, there is an inspector for it? Does he agree that it is very important that we as a Government, and he as a Minister, keep an eye on the growth of that sector of the civil service, because otherwise we shall kill the goose that lays the golden egg?

Mr. Davis: I agree entirely about the need to reduce the regulatory burden, especially on small companies. The citizens charter and deregulation go hand in hand; they are not alternatives. They are both about providing a better quality of service to users and improving efficiency. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that unnecessary regulation is avoided and that new regulations are not excessively onerous for the business community. In that context, it is no coincidence that the policy to deregulate London Buses was mentioned in the citizens charter White Paper.

Mr. Cryer: Instead of wasting civil servants' time on these useless public relations exercises that are called charters, why does not the Minister do something sensible

for a change and transfer civil servants to the disability living allowance unit at Blackpool, where applications for mobility allowance and attendance allowance are still weeks behind? People are living in great difficulty because of the delays, which result from the Government not providing enough civil servants for the job.

Mr. Davis: That is an extraordinary statement. The hon. Gentleman should have read the ombudsman's report on the disability living allowance, in which he identified the charter as a very important tool in achieving better terms, improvements and recompense for people who had suffered under the scheme.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been expended on citizens charters since their inception.

Mr. Waldegrave: The charter applies to all public services, which is reflected in their individual expenditure programmes. Centrally, the charter unit spent£1·6 million in 1991–92 and£2·14 million in 1992–93.

Mr. Banks: Would I be right to assume that the global figure is much more than£2·14 million? An extraordinarily large amount of taxpayers' money is being wasted on what most people regard as nothing more than propaganda puffs to give the appearance that the Government are actually doing something, when we know they are incapable of doing anything. These charters are a joke—a very expensive joke. It is little surprise that they give most people the impression that the country is being run by a bunch of train spotters.

Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps that would be better than being run by the panel game on which the hon. Member excels. All public services should give clear information to the people who use them. That is a proper use of the resources that are voted by the House for public service. I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman, with his background, does not understand that it is an essential part of public service to let people know what their rights are.

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received about complaints procedures in the public services as part of the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Davis: I announced the citizens charter complaints task force on 10 June. As part of its work, it will be seeking the views of public service and other organisations and, of course, those of members of the public.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that many people still find it a bureaucratic nightmare to make a complaint to and about a public sector organisation? Can he assure me that the complaints task force will draw up a set of principles to make it easier to make a complaint and to encourage public service organisations to treat complaints more positively and as a means of ensuring their own effectiveness?

Mr. Davis: I am happy to give my hon. Friend just such an assurance. He is right to state that complaints systems must be easy to use and that complaints must be responded to by the people who operate those systems. I cite an example: just such an attitude is engendered in the Department of Social Security's OTIS system. It stands for


"opportunity to improve service", and the evidence so far is that improving services is exactly what it has done, precisely because it is simple and quick and enables the service to analyse complaints and to respond to them effectively and speedily.

Mr. Hall: May I refer the Minister to a complaint that I received About the Cheshire family health services authority, which gave some of my constituents five days' notice that their doctor's surgery was about to close? I checked the citizens charter, which states that patients have a right to be-consulted about their services, but when I checked with the family health services authority, I found that there was no law to ensure that they were. The Cheshire family health services authority closed the surgery regardless of the views of my constituents. Will the Minister take on board my ten-minute Bill, which would amend the law to ensure that in future patients are consulted about doctors' surgeries and the services that they receive?

Mr. Davis: Naturally, I should be happy to consider the matter if the hon. Gentleman would write to me or give me some notice, rather than bouncing it and trying to score political points. If he cares to write to me, I shall deal with the matter.

Mr. Bates: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which other Governments have contacted his Department for information about the implementation of the citizens charter.

Mr. Waldegrave: At least 15 other Governments have been in contact with me or my Department to find out more about the citizens charter. Last year's service to the citizen conference attracted delegates from 21 countries, and we expect that the next event will attract even more.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that among the 15 are the new French Government, who are committed to introducing a form of citizens charter? Does not the international interest prove that, just as Britain led the world in introducing private enterprise into tired and inefficient nationalised industries in the 1980s to make them more competitive, Britain is again leading the world in the 1990s by dispelling the myth that the only way to improve the efficiency of public services is by throwing more money at them?

Mr. Waldegrave: The previous French socialist Government sent a speaker to our conference last year, and I am happy to say that the new French Government retain that interest. Throughout the world, Governments across the political spectrum are having to reassess the way in which public services are run so that people's legitimately higher expectations can be met against the background of very tough resource decisions. Everyone faces the same issues.

Technology Transfer

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what specific measures he will take under the Technology Foresight programme to increase technology transfer.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Technology Foresight programme will promote technology transfer through a new

partnership between science and industry. Improvements in working relationships between academics and industrialists have been a major feature of foresight processes overseas. This programme will help the Government to determine their own priorities for spending on science and technology.

Mr. Gunnell: I think that the Minister would agree that the Technology Foresight programme looks constructive on paper, but that, as in science itself, translation from theory into practice is not always easy and requires resources and imagination. In view of the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Office of Science and Technology, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that funds have followed the transfer and that he has the necessary funds to launch and promote the programme? What measures has he taken to encourage to join his steering committee people with the creativity, imagination and commitment to ensure that the programme translates from theory into practice?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. It is perfectly easy to describe the process, but what really matters is to get it established well and working well. My Department is now involved in a series of regional visits across the country, discussing how best to take forward the programme—officials have doubtless been to Leeds to discuss it with the relevant players there. It is essential that we have the involvement of those working at the laboratory bench and those in industry who really understand markets.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more industry is involved in the Technology Foresight programme, the more likely it is that industry will pick up the fruits of that programme and carry them through to the marketplace?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes an essential point. The Technology Foresight programme here must be like the successful programmes abroad and not be dominated by Whitehall; it must be led by practitioners in the field including scientists, engineers and industrialists. We at the centre should simply be the secretariat for the process. That is the intention.

Citizens Charters

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce further charters during 1993; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Davis: Thirty-two charters have been produced so far. New charters during 1993 will include the further and higher education charters. In addition, the Benefits Agency charter and parents charter will be updated and improved.

Mr. Greenway: I particularly welcome the further and higher education charters. May I ask for more action on schools charters and particularly the publication of league tables for school attendance, allowing for a proper value added section? Is not it legitimate and right that parents should know which schools achieve high attendance? Is not the charter a good way of achieving that? In my right hon. Friend's opinion, why does the Labour party oppose providing information about schools? The Labour party does not care about parents' right to know.

Mr. Davis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The proposal to produce league tables will be one of the motivating forces for improving our education service. That is true whether it relates to educational achievement in its academic sense or to truancy. In respect of the latter point, I note that a report was published today which is very helpful.
With regard to my hon. Friend's point about value added tables, of course we believe that they would be the best kind of tables to have. However, as my hon. Friend will understand, it will take time to develop a database for those tables to work. In the meantime, we see absolutely no reason to deny parents the kind of information that would allow them to take the proper action in the best interests of their children's education.

Mr. McCartney: Will the further and higher education charters include the right for students to claim housing benefit and income support during summer recesses? Some of my constituents will have less than£5 a week to live on this summer after they have paid their rent during the college recess. That is an unacceptable imposition of poverty on our youth and on the development of their educational potential in respect of industry. If the further and higher education charters are to mean something, there must be a right of access to housing benefit and income support for students when they are not at college.

Mr. Davis: Absolutely not. Housing benefit and income support are designed for people who need them because they are in poverty or in poor circumstances of one kind or another. They are not designed as a giveaway for students in our society. I believe that it is a very bad idea to start young people off on a dependent mode as they begin their careers.

Science and Engineering (Wales)

Mr. Richards: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last visited Wales to discuss science and engineering issues; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: I discussed science and technology issues when I replied to the excellent debate at the Welsh Conservative party conference on 12 June.

Mr. Richards: I thank my right hon. Friend for corning to Wales to make the first speech on science and engineering at a party conference for many years. Does not that reflect the importance that the Government attach to science and engineering—unlike the Labour party, which attaches very little importance to that subject?

Mr. Waldegrave: I note that the Welsh Conservative party lead on that matter as, doubtless, it leads on others. I also note that there is no proper spokesman for science and engineering in the shadow Cabinet and that is a matter of regret. I also note that in Wales there are major developments in this area. For example, the Agricultural and Food Research Council is now concentrating most of its work on grassland research in Wales and that is quite proper.

Investors and Risk Takers

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what intitiatives his Department has taken to encourage the investors, entrepreneurs and risk takers of the United Kingdom to produce scientific products for the world market.

Mr. David Davis: Partnership for the creating of wealth lies at the heart of the White Paper on science, engineering and technology. As markers of that—there are too many aspects to go through in one question—each research council will have a mission statement that reflects that aim, and the Technology Foresight exercise will be identifying generic aspects of technology and research that are most useful for the United Kingdom's industrial base, a policy which has already proved to be successful in Japan. In support of that, the Department of Trade and Industry's innovation budget to assist small business will be increased by 15 per cent. this year.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that trade and industry are delighted with the emphasis that the Government are now placing on the research councils' drive for wealth creation? That is just what industry and commerce want, and it is just what the doctor ordered.

Mr. Davis: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is supported by several people, not least Richard Freeman, ICI's chief economist, who, referring to science and technology, said:
A central feature of the White Paper is the commitment to the greater focus of S&amp;T policy on United Kingdom competitiveness and wealth creation. Within more explicit guidelines … research is to have regard to its relevance and potential for appropriation by industry and other users. These are changes to be greatly welcomed.
I agree with him entirely.

Rolls-Royce

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he has had with the chairman of Rolls-Royce about his White Paper on science, engineering and technology.

Mr. Waldegrave: I expect to meet Sir Ralph Robins next month and I am looking forward to discussing the White Paper with him. I was greatly encouraged by the letter from him and 12 other senior industrialists in The Times on 1 June welcoming the White Paper.

Mr. Knapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Sir Ralph Robins letter was also signed by the chief executives of Glaxo, British Aerospace and many others? Does not that show that the vast majority of British industrialists fully support my right hon. Friend's White Paper on science, engineering and technology?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a very broad welcome for the White Paper. As sometimes happens, the spokesman for the Labour party in the House of Lords, who had perhaps read the document before responding to it, got it right in welcoming it, whereas its spokesman in this House had not read it and did not welcome it.

Iraq

Mr. George Robertson: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations Security Council's consideration of the United States attack on targets in Baghdad.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): On 26 June, United States forces launched a military operation against the headquarters of the Iraqi intelligence service in Baghdad. That action follows discovery by the Kuwaiti authorities of a plot to assassinate ex-President Bush in Kuwait city in mid-April by detonating a car bomb. The consequences if the bomb had detonated would have been devastating and would have led to great loss of innocent life.
On 27 June, the Americans immediately reported the action to the Security Council as required by article 51 of the charter and briefed it on the evidence of Iraqi involvement in the plot and the threat presented to the United States by Iraqi terrorism. That operation was a justified and proportionate exercise of the right of self-defence, and a necessary warning to Iraq that state terrorism cannot and will not be tolerated.
That act of terrorism by the Iraqi regime has to be seen in the context of a pattern of attempted defiance and obstruction by Iraq of the United Nations.
Iraq also continues to detain illegally nationals of Kuwait and other countries. Three British citizens—Paul Ride, Michael Wainwright and Simon Dunn—have been given grotesque prison sentences, along with nationals of the United States, Sweden and Germany. We are doing everything that we can to secure their release.
The international community has achieved progress in dismantling the Iraqi regime's capacity to attack its neighbours and in deterring attacks on its own citizens; but the attempt to kill ex-President Bush is a reminder that the Iraqi state is still a sponsor of terrorism. We believe that only through firmness can Iraq be persuaded to conform to the standards of behavour required of it and others by the international community.

Mr. Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer, but I tell him that the American action yesterday was dubious in legality, questionable in morality, haphazard in its military impact, and potentially devastating in diplomacy. It should therefore never have been supported by the British Government.
No one doubts the appalling nature of Saddam's regime, least of all those Labour Members who have campaigned for many years, and no one doubts the need collectively to face up to the threat that he poses both to his own people and his neighbours.
How can it be said that the raid is justified as falling under article 51 of the United Nations charter when the alleged assassination attempt failed anyway? It took place some three months ago, and the trial of the accused people has not been completed. How can it be said to be measured and appropriate, when the target building was in a busy city centre and at least three of the missiles almost predictably failed to hit that target and killed innocent civilians?
How can the action be said to be effective when it has alienated our Arab allies and united Saddam's friends?

How can it be said to have enhanced international law and order and the influence of the United Nations when the decision was taken unilaterally by the United States, involved no real consultation with this Government beforehand and went to the Security Council only after it had taken place?
Did our Prime Minister ask President Clinton to take the issue to the Security Council and seek prior authority for it? Did President Clinton tell our Prime Minister what yesterday's target would be? Was the United Nations Secretary-General consulted in any way before the attack happened? Did our Government take into account sufficiently its effect on the British prisoners who languish in Saddam's gaols at present?
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that those of us who are friends of the United States, President Clinton and his Administration—especially those of us who are their friends—are dismayed and troubled by what happened yesterday and believe that the attack should not have taken place? If there is to be a new world order—we all hope that there will be one—it cannot be based on unilateral action taken by any one state, however powerful. If that new order that we all yearn for is to have any chance at all of succeeding, it must be firmly based on international law and the clear authority of the United Nations.

Mr. Hurd: I am surprised by the nature of the hon. Gentleman's response. It seemed to be a throwback to the old days from which I thought the Labour party had recovered. It showed little understanding of the sort of problem that the President of the United States faced when he considered the mounting evidence before him.
I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. Article 51 prescribes:
Force may be used in exercise of a State's inherent right of individual or collective self-defence,
and that that exercise must be reported immediately to the Security Council. Force may be used in self-defence against threats to one's nationals if: (a) there is good evidence that the target attacked would otherwise continue to be used by the other State in support of terrorist attacks against one's nationals; (b) there is, effectively, no other way to forestall imminent further attacks on one's nationals; (c) the force employed is proportionate to the threat. That is the state of international law as we understand it. However, it must be viewed against the political context, which the hon. Gentleman would not deny.
The Iraqi state has shown time and time again a propensity to engage in state terrorism, so there must be considered to be a constant threat of further attacks. Unless the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party understand that position, they are not understanding the realities with which President Clinton had to deal.
The second question related to consultation. For several weeks since the middle of May, we have been told that, as the United States, and especially the FBI, examined the nature of what occurred, they were considering what further step they would have to take in response. The Americans made it clear that this was to be, if it took place, a United States action, that they would not ask for allied participation in it, but that they would ask for allied understanding and political support. That was the nature of it. We have been kept fully informed as the action continued.
The main gap in the assumptions of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and in his questions to me was the assumption that, before the right of self-defence can be exercised, there needs to be a specific mandate from the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman, "Please think carefully before you put that forward as a received doctrine of an Opposition party."

Mr. John Smith: He did not say that.

Mr. Hurd: Well, that was the implication of everything that the hon. Gentleman said. It is simply not possible to lay that down as a doctrine. It must be right, as the United Nations charter recognises, that states preserve and have the right to exercise the right of self-defence without a specific authority each time from the United Nations, provided that they immediately report, as the United States did, on that action to the Security Council. I believe that that is absolutely fundamental to the nature and prospects of world order.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that state-inspired or state-condoned terrorism is one of the most dangerous and evil threats to the stability of the world today, and that it points a dagger at our own societies here in Europe, as well as spreading throughout the middle east and along the north coast of Africa?
Will he therefore agree, as I am sure he will, that, although the loss of innocent lives in any operation of this kind is deeply to be regretted, far fewer have died in this case than have died, are dying and will die if state terrorism of this deliberate kind is allowed to proceed unchecked by a decisive response, such as the response that. the Americans have employed?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I especially agree with what he says about civilian deaths. I do not believe that the targeting can be regarded as disproportionate, given the nature of the target and the nature of the offence. I disagree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Hamilton on that.
I further agree with what my right hon. Friend says about state terrorism. All of us, and Iraq in particular, are required by paragraph (32) of Security Council resolution 687 to give an undertaking not to support state terrorism. That undertaking was given, but has not been honoured. Against the background that I have described, it is legal and reasonable that this measure should have been taken as a response to the assassination attempt and as a signal for the future.

Sir David Steel: The Foreign Secretary noticeably did not quote the part of article 51 of the charter that makes it clear that the article is intended to be used when there has been an attack on a member nation pending the ability of the Security Council to restore international peace. It was not intended for retaliation against an abortive attack two months ago when the Security Council had not considered the matter.
Surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that the right course would have been to present the intelligence evidence to the Security Council, together with the evidence from the Kuwaiti trial when it had been completed, and to take action against Saddam's intelligence headquarters as a threat to international peace. That is the orderly way in which to proceed.
As it is, surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that there are damaging consequences. The Gulf coalition has been broken. The Arab Governments who are under threat from Islamic fundamentalism now find that it is fuelled by the American action. The action also undermines the authority of the United Nations itself. The right hon. Gentleman must tell President Clinton that "might is right" is not the new world order.

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to set out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House how article 51 stands as regards attacks against the nationals of a member state. I do not accept, as I have said, that it is an inevitable restriction on the rights of member states of the United Nations under article 51 that they should have to receive a specific authority and approval from the Security Council before they exercise that right.
I advise the right hon. Gentleman, as I have advised the hon. Member for Hamilton, not to start to lay that down as a principle of international order. There would be a dangerous state of paralysis if it were accepted.

Mr. Ray Whitney: The Labour party's reaction, far from being surprising, is entirely predictable and, indeed, Pavlovian. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a vigorous response to state terrorism is essential, and that the action of the United States was very necessary—in particular, to show that the change of Administration in Washington had not changed the resolve of the United States Government to force the Iraqi regime to behave in an internationally acceptable way?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. It is very important that Iraq should understand that the change of Administration in the United States, or any other development on the international scene, will not lessen the weight attached by the international community to the need for Iraq to discharge its obligations, including the obligation against state terrorism. The signal for the future is crucial.
It was predictable that the action which was taken would be criticised in some quarters. I am sorry that the Labour party has joined in that criticism, as it shows misunderstanding of what the world needs, which is strict compliance with international law. However, the world requires also firmly shown proof, particularly from the United States, of a willingness to deal with state terrorism.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that two of the people who died in Baghdad on Saturday night included a little baby of 18 months, who was held by its shopkeeper father, and whose mother is critically ill in hospital? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this act was perpetrated by a country that launched the Bay of Pigs attack, invaded Grenada, invaded Panama, and has itself been guilty of many acts of state terrorism?
Does the right hon. Gentleman know—indeed, he almost confirmed it—that the real motive was to give President Clinton a reputation at home for being tough? The British Prime Minister supported the action, as he is accused of indecision in this country. Before the right hon. Gentleman frames his answer, I should tell him that the brother of the man who was killed—the uncle of the baby—is here today to hear his reply and the first apology for the killing of innocent people in this murderous attack on Baghdad.

Hon. Members: Say you are sorry.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will resume their seats.

Mr. Hurd: A few minutes ago, I expressed regret for the loss of civilian lives. No doubt I was simply saying what a representative of the President of the United States had said already'. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be no response to such attempts at state terrorism—this attempt, if successful, would have resulted in the deaths of a very large number of people not in any way involved in the Gulf war or the argument—he is putting forward an argument for paralysis, which we cannot accept.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While totally deploring the alleged attempted assassination of a former United States President—a friend and ally of this country—may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he realises that, over the next decade, we shall need the support of some Arab countries if we are to contain Iraq and Iran? Does he agree that Hizbollah and Hamas will have been greatly strengthened by the events of the weekend? If he were a moderate in the Arab world, encouraging democracy and respect for human rights—let alone a Palestinian negotiating with the Israelis—his position today would be fragile.

Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is one that was made throughout the Gulf war. It was said constantly in many parts of this country by experts on Middle East affairs that, if the United States and the rest of the west were to take a firm line, there would be flaking away of support for the coalition. This was constantly written and otherwise reported at the time of sanctions and Desert Storm.
It is a risk, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it. I suspect that what happened before when these warnings were given will happen again. Although those concerned feel doubts and express criticisms, on reflection they will feel safer and more satisfied that the United States is once again prepared to show leadership against an evil from which we and especially those states suffer—that of state terrorism.

Mr. Peter Shore: While there are real difficulties in dealing with the provocations and crimes of an outlaw regime such as that of Saddam Hussein, surely, in the exchanges between the President and the Prime Minister, it was pointed out to the President that the American case would have been far stronger if action had been deferred until the conclusion of the Kuwaiti trial.

Mr. Hurd: The United States deferred action until the nature of the responsibility was clear from its own investigations. The evidence is there—was in Mrs. Albright's speech yesterday—t that responsibility lay where the missile attack was directed.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As one who agreed entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said about state terrorism and who believes that the Gulf war should not have ended until Saddam Hussein had been deposed, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, if we are to have an internationally respected world order, we must

be even-handed? Does he agree that those who orchestrate, plan and perpetrate genocide should be treated at least as harshly as those who plan the deaths of presidents?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has been persistent over months in advocating a more interventionist policy in the former Yugoslavia. That is what he is referring to. We do not have an established world order: we have attempts to create one and a series of tragic situations in which, in one way or another, such order is being breached.
The international community must seek case by case—all these cases are different—the best remedy that it can afford. The two situations—the attempted assassination of ex-President Bush and the war in Bosnia and the crisis alongside it in Croatia—are as different as could be. There is no established world order that would provide equal remedies for each.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people in this country are simply nauseated by the alacrity with which the Prime Minister endorsed the American criminal action? What did the Secretary-General of the United Nations say about this?
The Foreign Secretary has the reputation, rightly, of being a humane man. Has he any idea of the sheer horror in places such as the Amariya where missiles struck during the Gulf war? In that place, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), Tim Llewellyn of the BBC and I saw carbonated arms on a ceiling. As in Pompeii, mothers were burnt holding their infants when the missiles arrived.
In such circumstances, can the Foreign Secretary be surprised that the many Iraqi graduates we met who were doubtful about the Ba'athists are now firmly behind Saddam Hussein? This kind of action entrenches the regime.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to bried me after his visit to Iraq. I entirely accept the good faith in which he and his hon. Friend undertook that visit. However, in several respects, the characteristics of a totalitarian regime enabled the two hon. Members to be thoroughly misled about the situation there. I respect the hon. Gentleman's bona fides and his sincerity, but not his conclusions.
I do not believe that, in the end, the cause of humanity—which is what the hon. Gentleman is pleading—is served by allowing attempts of this kind to go without response. I do not believe that it is safe. We can argue about particular targeting and particular procedures, but I disagree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman's main assumption: that regimes like that of Saddam Hussein—given its record and the knowledge that we had of its intentions—should be spared and left alone simply because a response inevitably carries with it the risk of innocent casualties.

Mr. David Sumberg: Is not the correct historical comparison not with the Gulf war but with the action that the United States took against Libya a few years ago? Should it not be made equally clear to Saddam Hussein, as it was to Colonel Gaddafi, that state-sponsored terrorism is entirely unacceptable?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend puts the gist of it very well. I agree with him.

Mr. George Galloway: Does the Secretary of State accept that he cut an uncharacteristically unconvincing figure when he made his opening remarks? The Secretary of State, who knows the middle east very well—and the British Foreign Office, which knows it even better—will know the consequences of 23 Tomahawk cruise missiles landing on an Arab capital. One of the collateral damages was the death in her sleep, with her husband and family, of Leila Attar, a very famous Iraqi painter, who was revered throughout the Arab world.
The Foreign Secretary knows that that raid has detonated a fracture among the Arab allies of this country and the United States, and set in train a further twist to the pattern of fanaticism, extremism and despair which is felt throughout the Arab area, and which imperils the very regimes to which he and the Foreign,Office are so close.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Arab world will see that raid, as his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) said, not just as a dramatic comparison with the paralysis over the Bosnian Muslims, but as a tawdry, shabby attempt by a pathetic President of the United States of America to divert attention from his miserable failures at home?

Mr. Hurd: That is not what the historian will record when he looks at the American papers. I have had enough knowledge of this over the last few weeks, from discussions in Washington last month, to know the way in which this was tackled and the way in which the plans for this operation were postponed, put aside and withheld while an authentic and serious investigation took place. That is what the history books will show.
The hon. Gentleman's main point, which is understandable, is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South. The hon. Gentleman rightly records the risks and criticisms from the area, but running alongside them, and eventually overcoming them, will be a feeling of relief that there is the possibility—nay,

the certainty—of firm action against the evils of state terrorism, from which the countries about which he has spoken have been and may well be the chief sufferers.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Would my right hon. Friend take it from me, as someone who has lived and worked in the middle east, that the people I know are much more concerned about firm allies at this dangerous time than legal niceties? Can I also put it to my right hon. Friend that the next time that western interests are in serious danger in the middle east, the Americans may, for one reason or another, be less willing to intervene? It is essential that the countries of western Europe, which in practice means Britain and France, do retain a capacity to intervene ourselves, if necessary.

Mr. Hurd: In this case, the Americans acted; they asked for our support, not our participation. They were entitled to that support, and they were given it.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The Foreign Secretary sought to justify the American action according to the concept of self-defence under international law. He will know that there is a clear distinction in international law between self-defence and reprisal. Is not self-defence essentially a defensive action against the threat of attack, while a reprisal is a punitive action to punish a past unlawful incident? Given those definitions, is it not clear that what we have witnessed is punishment, a reprisal, and not self-defence?

Mr. Hurd: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right that that distinction exists, but he is obscuring or ignoring the fact that the threat remains. I told the House about our understanding of the state of international law when there has been an attempt at state terrorism; the threat quite clearly remains, and is a serious one.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on to the statement.

Police Reform (White Paper)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the future of the police service in England and Wales.
I am today publishing a White Paper which sets out the Government's proposals for police reform. Those proposals will lay the basis for the police service of the 21st century and deliver the promises that we have made under the citizens charter.
We are rightly proud of our police service and of our tradition of policing with the consent and support of the community, but the present administrative arrangements can handicap the police in getting on with their job. There is not a clear enough distinction between the respective roles of the chief constable and the police authority. There is too much paperwork, and the police are not given a clear enough set of priorities. The aim of the White Paper is to enable the police to focus far more than they can at present on waging war against crime.
There are four main elements to my proposals. First, we need to forge the strongest possible partnership between the police and the public. The concept of such a partnership is not new; it can be traced back to the roots of British policing. However, we now need to revitalise community support for the police.
The police cannot succeed on their own. We all have a responsibility as individuals to give our help and support. There are many ways for people to get involved, for example as members of neighbourhood watch schemes, or by joining their local police consultative group. Even more importantly, we need to help the police to prevent and detect crime by passing on information that may be of use to them.
Service as a special constable is the most active way in which ordinary people can help the police. Special constables provide a valuable link between the police and the community. I therefore propose to set a fresh target of 30,000 for the number of special constables—an increase of 10,000 on the present strength of 20,000.
Secondly, I intend to strengthen local police authorities. They will set their own budgets. They will be required to develop local policing plans and strategies for partnership between the public and the police. They will be expected to consult closely with the public in drawing them up. They will be required to tell local people how well their force has done, so that they can compare its performance with that of other forces. They will be clearly responsible for ensuring that policing meets both local and national priorities, and they will be held to account for the results.
I intend that local police authorities should have access to a wider pool of local experience and ability in carrying out those tasks. Police authorities will all be independent bodies made up of local people. Each police authority will have 16 members: eight local councillors, three local magistrates and five local people appointed by the Home Secretary. One person from among the overall membership will be appointed by the Home Secretary to chair the authority.
Thirdly, we shall make it easier for chief constables and local police commanders to deliver a service that provides what local people want, in accordance with citizens charter principles. We want to streamline management within

police forces to devolve responsibility to the lowest possible level. The main responsibility for local policing should go to the local commanders who are in touch with their local communities.
Central Government grant to the police will in future be cash-limited. That will allow us to give detailed controls on police manpower and capital expenditure. We shall no longer determine centrally how many police officers there should be in each force. It will be for local police authorities and police forces to decide for themselves on the mix of police officers, civilian staff, equipment and other resources that they need. They will not need the permission of the Home Secretary if they want more police constables instead of senior managers.
Fourthly, we want to give the police a clear sense of priorities. I propose that, in future, the Home Secretary will publish a brief statement each year of the key objectives for the police service. That will provide a framework for assessing police performance. Those objectives will reflect the Government's belief that fighting crime and the protection of the public should he the top priorities in police work.
The police must be freed as far as possible from the burden of paperwork, so that they can concentrate on the key objectives of fighting crime and protecting the public. That is why we have commissioned a swift study by consultants to examine the paper administration of the criminal justice process from arrest by the police to disposal in court. I attach a great deal of importance to this exercise. I want to see a significant reduction in paper pushing. The public want the police to concentrate on fighting crime. So do the police, and so do I.
I now come to my proposals for London. My predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said in a statement to the House on 23 March that he would consider how the new format for police authorities might be changed to take account of the special circumstances of London. Since my appointment, I have given this careful consideration.
The Metropolitan police have unique national responsibilities. I have therefore concluded that the national interest in the work of the Metropolitan police makes it right that the Home Secretary should remain the police authority for London. But in discharging these responsibilities, I shall no longer rely solely on advice from the Home Office.
To help me oversee the performance of the Metropolitan police, I will be forming a new body. I shall appoint to it people from a wide variety of backgrounds with the skills and experience to make a major contribution to the work of the police in the capital. It will, for example, help me draw up local London objectives for the police taking account of Londoners' views. I have no doubt that these new arrangements will be of great benefit to the people of London.
These are the main elements of a much broader programme of reform. The White Paper also sets out a range of other measures to provide the police service with the best modern management systems.
On Wednesday, I expect Sir Patrick Sheehy to announce the results of his inquiry into police pay, conditions of service and rank structure. We need arrangements which will ensure that we can recruit and retain high quality officers and which allow for the widely differing responsibilities of individual officers
There will be new procedures to ensure that poor performance by individual officers is dealt with fairly and effectively. There will also be new separate arrangements for dealing with misconduct by police officers. Existing procedures are often long drawn out. This is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view, not least the police. Speedier decisions should result from the new arrangement.
I hope to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to implement all the elements of the reform programme. I want to see them all in place by April 1995. The changes that do not require legislation will be introduced sooner, and many are already in hand.
This is a programme of reform to lay the foundations of policing well into the next century. The reforms will lead to a better service for the public and greater job satisfaction for police officers. With the support of all of us, the police service will be more effective in its ability to wage war against crime. I commend these proposals to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: As I did in March, may I welcome the part of the Home Secretary's proposals that deal with greater flexibility in financing? Will he confirm that this is just the removal of a central Government inhibition on local finances and could be done by a simple one-line amendment to the Police Act 1964, and that it is distinct from all the other proposals in relation to police authority?
As the Home Secretary announced in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, he says that he will increase the number of special constables from 20,000 to 30,000. Will he confirm what appears in the White Paper, that there is already a plan to increase special constables to 25,000—that makes his announcement today slightly disingenuous—and that the figure that he has announced is simply a target, not a firm commitment? At present, even the target is nowhere near being met. Will he also confirm that he is keeping the freeze on new police officers, which is hampering many local police authorities that want more police officers back on the beat in local communities?
One startling omission from the Home Secretary's statement was any mention of the proposal for amalgamating police forces. We might therefore have supposed that he has dropped it. Will he confirm that the White Paper contains a whole chapter on amalgamations? I do not know why he did not mention that. Is it because that chapter makes it clear that the Home Office believes that the number of existing authorities is questionable and because it wants to reduce them and amalgamate them considerably?
The White Paper states on page 42:
But the Government does not propose to launch an immediate programme of compulsory force amalgamations.
It then states on page 43:
Where in future police force amalgamations become desirable, the Secretary of State will be able to prescribe new police force areas.
It sets out a new procedure for amalgamation that leaves out many of the aspects of public consultation.
Will the Home Secretary come clean and say what his intentions are for larger police forces? All the evidence shows that smaller forces have better cost-effectiveness, a higher percentage of operational officers and a better clear-up rate.
On London, was not there the clearest possible commitment in March to a proper police authority for

London, as there is in other areas? Is it not the height of absurdity to justify reneging on that commitment on the ground of the unique work of the Metropolitan police, when the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has, during the last few days, given his full support to a proper police authority in the interests of better policing? Is not the truth that what has changed are not the views of the police, still less those of the people of London, but the response to the clamour of a few out-of-touch, unrepresentative Tory Back Benchers who want to deny Londoners a proper voice in how London is policed?
On the structure of new police authorities, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is opposed by virtually all chief constables and by Tory, as well as Labour, local councillors? He claims that it is necessary to remove local councillors from a large part of the police authority to depoliticise the police, but does he understand that the effect of his proposals will be not to depoliticise police authorities, but to transfer political control from local people who are locally elected to serve local communities to Government appointees who are accountable only to Whitehall?
There is a deep and growing concern in this country, across a range of issues, about the vast number of local services from health through to policing, involving billions of pounds of public money, where the chairmen and chairwomen of the controlling bodies now hold office at the Government's pleasure and the fact that their first loyality will not and cannot be to local people, but only to the Tory party in government.
Are not the Home Secretary's proposals, taken as a whole, the clearest sign of the utter bankruptcy of the Tory party as the party of law and order? Is that not shown by the fact that he should announce, as his first measure, not a new initiative on crime, drug abuse, violence, car crime, burglary or even crime prevention, but a misguided piece of prejudice against local policing? What this country wants is not a vendetta against local government, but a crusade against crime—and it is the Labour party that will wage it.

Mr. Howard: The first question was whether it would be possible to detach some of our elements of reform from others and enact them separately. Of course, the answer is in the affirmative. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should ask such a question.
On the issue of special constables, I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would tell us whether he too was in favour of an increase in the target figure for special constables, and whether he thought that they had an important part to play. He remained silent. He was not prepared to say on that issue, as on any of the other issues that he raised, whether he was in favour of our proposals, against them or, as is so often the case, simply sitting on the fence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about amalgamation. As my predecessor announced, we are introducing more streamlined arrangements to replace the present cumbersome ones, where amalgamation is thought desirable. I shall consider any proposals for amalgamation on their merits.
On London, what it comes down to when one sits, listens to and penetrates the hon. Gentleman's bluster, is that he and the Labour party remain as determined as ever to put left-wing Lambeth Labour councillors, who are still not prepared to participate in the work of the local police consultative committee, on any local police authority for


London that Labour would set up. That is what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's bluster about London, and we will have no part of it.
The hon. Gentleman repeated the old litany of criticism about police authorities outside London. Is he seriously suggesting that only councillors and magistrates can make an effective contribution as members of a police authority, and that no one else has anything to contribute? That is the import of the hon. Gentleman's criticism.
We say that 50 per cent. of the membership of police authorities should continue to be councillors. Three members should be magistrates, and five should be appointed by the Home Secretary. Those five can bring to bear their wide experience of the problems that are faced by police authorities, and make an effective contribution to the authorities' work.
We heard from the hon. Gentleman what we hear all the time from the Opposition, day in day out, in the House. "Things," they say, "are dreadful as they are. Let us keep them exactly as they are."

Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement—particularly as it relates to special constables—and I remind him, the House and the country that it was Special Constable Goodman who was murdered by the IRA in North Yorkshire. That proved that special constables can be as brave and courageous in the policing of Britain as full-time police officers.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that local accountability and contact between the police and the community both exist through the consultative committees, and not through the police authorities which have a small number of members?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. He is, of course, right to pay tribute to the bravery of Special Constable Goodman and, indeed, of other special constables, who, together with the police, are prepared to risk their lives for the rest of the community, day in, day out.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the important contribution that local police consultative committees can make. I am sure that they will continue to make an effective contribution under the new arrangements that I have proposed.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: If the Home Secretary is to assume sole reponsibility for the appointment of the chairman and five members of the local police authority, for setting the key objectives of every police force and for capping their expenditure, is he not on the road to making the police answerable only to himself and not to the communities with which partnership is essential for effective policing?
Is it the Government's intention to follow the pattern that has been set in health, in which the Government have taken on doctors, dentists, nurses and even patients in attacking the problems? Are the Government prepared to pit themselves against the entire police service with the proposals?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood our proposals. We are not proposing to cap the expenditure of local police authorities, as he will find out when he looks at the proposals in detail.
It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman and his party seriously on law and order. The only debate on the subject at the most recent party assembly was a motion to legalise brothels. When the hon. Gentleman's party takes law and order seriously at its party conference, we will take seriously what he says in the House.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the reforms are designed to help the police concentrate on what the people of Portsmouth really care about—the prevention and detection of violence, burglary, vandalism and so on—rather than on those matters that are so beloved of the Labour party, and particularly their local councillors, which make police officers into virtual social workers?

Mr. Howard: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he wants. I hope that the people of Portsmouth will take full advantage of the opportunities that the proposals contained in the White Paper will make available to them. They will be able to have their say in setting the priorities of their local police force—and, indeed, will be able to play a full part in helping their local police force to do its job more effectively.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Home Secretary aware of the perception that the pendulum has been pushed too far against the police and the courts, and that there would be widespread support for any measures that restored the pendulum to at least mid-distance? May we look upon his announcement today as a modest beginning?

Mr. Howard: I am certainly aware of the perception to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The proposals are a first step on an important road and will, I hope, go a long way to removing that perception. We have a unique opportunity to tackle the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and I intend to do everything in my power to tackle it effectively.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement about strengthening the partnership between the police and the public will be warmly welcomed, as will his comments about eliminating unnecessary police paperwork—which was imposed by the House when it passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?
Is my right hon. and learned Friend further aware that the police service will have substantial reservations about his decision that he and his successors as Home Secretary will in future appoint half the membership of the new-style police authorities? How will their members be chosen, and who will vet them?
As to the increase in the number of specials, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making their work a form of voluntary national service—so that young men and women who become specials can take part in police work and help everyone to become more aware of their civic responsibilities?
On the question of the Commissioner's advisory body—

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members are seeking to ask questions. I ask hon. Members to put one question each, so that we may get through as many as possible. Mr. Secretary Howard.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend speaks with particular authority on these matters, and I am grateful for his opening remarks. As to police authority membership, I shall appoint live of the 16 members—fewer than one third of the membership. I shall look for people who can bring their experience and expertise to bear effectively, to ensure that the new authorities give the relevant leadership required in their local areas. I note my hon. Friend's remarks about special constables, and I certainly view service as a special constable as service to the community in a very real sense.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary said that the Metropolitan police has unique responsibilities, but he could have considered the option of taking away those responsibilities. Some of us believe that they take up far too much of Metropolitan police resources. As for the Home Secretary's cheap crack about Lambeth as a reason for keeping local councillors out of London's police authority, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten that, under his own proposals, local authority representatives would not even be in the majority on the police authority?

Mr. Howard: The Metropolitan police's special responsibilities are indivisible from its other responsibilities, and it would not be at all sensible to hive them off in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. For that reason, I reached the conclusion that I outlined in my statement. I well understand the Opposition's sensitivity towards the behaviour of Lambeth councillors, but they are elected as Labour councillors, and the Opposition cannot disown them.

Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that a key objective of the White Paper is to ensure that police in Aylesbury and throughout the Thames valley area spend less time filling in forms and more time out of the office and on the beat, detecting and catching criminals?

Mr. Howard: I hope that we shall be able to achieve the objective that my hon. Friend identifies. As I said, a study is being made of the amount of police paperwork. I hope that we shall be able to reduce it as a result of that study, and that the consequence will be more policemen on the streets and on patrol, fighting crime—as my hon. Friend and I would like.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State said that he thought of the special circumstances of London when he took office. Can he tell us how those special circumstances had changed when his right hon. and learned predecessor came to the Dispatch Box a few months ago and said that there would be a new police authority for London?
When the Secretary of State abuses councillors in London, will he remember that he is abusing not just Lambeth councillors but Tory, Labour and Liberal councillors? How will the advisory committee for London be appointed? Will the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities be able to make

nominations? What does he intend to do about the City of London, which still has its own police authority in the middle of London?

Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) identified the relevance of the special responsibilities of the Metropolitan police to the decision that I have made. As to the membership of the new authority, no one will be able to make nominations to it, but I shall be open to suggestions from any quarter. When the hon. Gentleman grows excited about these matters, it behoves us all to remember his words in 1986, when he described the police as
all that is rotten in our society.

Mr. Tony Banks: At Wapping, as you know!

Mr. Howard: As long as I remain Home Secretary, the smaller the extent to which people who hold the views of the hon. Gentleman on the police have any influence on the police, the better.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Can the Home Secretary make it plain that, when amalgamations of police forces take place, they will take place after consultation with local people? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, whatever happens, nothing will be done that affects the integrity of the police force of the county of Kent?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the well-being of the police force of the county of Kent, so I shall bear his remarks in that context very much in mind. I can assure my hon. Friend that no amalgamations will take place without consultation, but the process of consultation will be very much more effective under our proposals than it is at the moment.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can the Secretary of State tell us who the consultants are and how much they are being paid? Can he guarantee that none of the principals, or the consultancy, has given money to the Tory party? Can he also guarantee that, when he appoints these people to the local police authorities they will not consist simply of Tory stooges?

Mr. Howard: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. We shall have as members of the police authorities those people who can make the most effective contribution to the work of those authorities. If it is indeed the view of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that the only people who can make such a contribution to the work of police authorities are councillors and magistrates, he ought to examine the position afresh.

Mr. James Paice: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge and appreciate that most people are fed up with the namby-pamby approach to law and order, and will welcome his move towards giving the police much more control over their own resources so that they can target them where they are needed? As part of my right hon. and learned Friend's campaign against paperwork, will he talk to the Lord Chancellor about the Crown Prosecution Service? An immense amount of police time is wasted on cases that never go to court, which is frustrating for the police and tormenting for the victim.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to identify that as a matter of concern. I share his concern. I hope that it will be possible, in the light of our response both to Sheehy and to the royal commission, which is expected to report next week, to address that concern in a very effective manner. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Mr. Chris Mullin: In the interests of reducing the paperwork, what plans does the Home Secretary have for putting an end to a little racket that has been going on in more than half our police forces for many years, whereby police officers tour the nation's gaols to persuade convicted felons to own up to offences on the unsolved book, which they then count towards their clear-up record?
Is the Home Secretary aware that, in Liverpool, for example, this practice accounted, according to the last figures I have seen, for more than 40 per cent. of the clear-up rate? It discriminates, of course, against honest police forces that do not employ this practice.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will discover when he reads the White Paper, as I know he will, that one of its proposals is to enable local people to make recommendations to their local police authority on the objectives of the force. That is the kind of factor that they can take into account in setting what they think the objectives should be, and the police authority will be in a position to set them.

Mr. Winston Churchill: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that not only the police but the country will welcome enormously the fact that we have a Home Secretary who is prepared to put some elbow and some muscle behind the police, to give them the equipment that they want and now to give them the reinforcements that they so badly need? What he said today about strengthening the special constabulary will be very welcome, especially in my constituency. What special measures does he propose to ensure that they are brought fully up to establishment at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I know that he has taken a close interest in the special constabulary, and in the important role that it plays. I am proposing a targeted campaign to maximise the recruitment of special constables.
I think that there is a mood abroad in the country that people want to play a part in helping the police. They are fed up with feeling frustrated and helpless and they all want to play a part in the war against crime. Becoming a special constable is one of the most active ways in which they can help. The targeted recruitment campaign will evoke a much more successful response than previous campaigns, and I shall certainly do all I can to ensure that it succeeds.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the witchfindergeneral please withdraw his odious and offensive remark against my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), which he knew was highly misleading? Will he confirm that, in appointing members to police authorities, especially the London authority, he intends to pack them with what have become known as "TWEMs"—Tory white establishment males?

Mr. Howard: I was particularly careful to quote accurately from what the hon. Member for Newham,

North-West (Mr. Banks) said in 1986, and I note that neither he nor the hon. Gentleman suggested that I got the quotation wrong.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement, especially the fact that he has come down against the policing of London being the same as the rest of the country. He has responded to the view of many Conservative Members that a police authority would be quite wrong for London. Indeed, that view is shared by local authorities. Will he confirm that, in making a change in London, there will be no need for fresh legislation?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming my decision on London. I think it likely that we can achieve the new arrangements for London without legislation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not this poor man's Jack Benny have the guts to admit that what this Tory Government are all about it taking away powers from democratically elected local authorities? They have done it with education, in part; they have done it with housing, in part; and they are already privatising lots of services.
The idea of shifting police authorities to be run by Tory spivs is part and parcel of getting more power at the centre of Government and taking it away from elected local government. As for being more effective, if the police were not effective, how did they manage to arrest 9,000 miners in 1984? They trampled the streets of north Derbyshire—

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Secretary Howard.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not seem too happy with the police under the present arrangements. I should have thought that he might be prepared to look rather more kindly on new and improved arrangements that will ensure that people other than councillors and magistrates can serve on police authorities and make use of their expertise and experience.

Mr. Tim Devlin: When my right hon. and learned Friend comes to appoint members of the police authorities, especially in places such as Cleveland, will he make it his top priority to appoint people from the community who have a positive contribution to make and who will help to build a partnership against crime, not Labour county councillors who have been found fighting in the library or arrested or other offences?

Mr. Howard: I shall not appoint members of police authorities on the basis of their political affiliation to whichever party they happen to belong, but I do not envisage appointing those who have been apprehended in the type of activity to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the important phrase that we need
to revitalise community support for the police",
but may I warn the Home Secretary that it will not come about by wholesale amalgamation via the specious league table idea?
Reference has been made to a cash limit which, if it is unreasonable, will merely perpetuate under-establishment. For example, my force in north Wales is grossly


under-established, I think to the tune of 70 members. If the cash limit is unreasonable, there will be no co-operation and the whole thing will be a waste of time.

Mr. Howard: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of wholesale amalgamation. Let me also assure him that the result of the changes envisaged in the White Paper will give much more control to the chief constable and local commanders, which will enable them to make decisions about the appropriate number of officers to a much greater extent than at present. I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman has had time to study the White Paper, he will find that his anxieties are allayed by its proposals.

Points of Order

Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that during last week's debate on party political funding, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), to whom I have given notice of this point of order, made a serious allegation to the effect that the President of the Board of Trade had been involved in trying to obtain foreign Governments' money to support the Conservative party. It has emerged over the weekend that the allegation was made at the behest of a newspaper simply for the purpose of ensuring that it was on the parliamentary record. Is not that a disgraceful abuse of our procedures and a clear breach of parliamentary privilege?

Madam Speaker: Very often, points of order are abuses of our procedures too, especially those that do not relate to the Chair and for which I have no responsibility.
I ended questions on the private notice question and on the statement reasonably early, because two minority parties have the right to be heard. I hope that hon. Members who wish to raise points of order will make absolutely certain that they are genuine.

Mr. William O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request or notice from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he wishes to make a statement about something that he said in County Down last Saturday night? When questioned about bombings in Northern Ireland, he said that, thankfully, no one had been killed but in the opera they all were killed.

Madam Speaker: Had there been a statement, it would have been on the annunciator and we would all have known about it by this stage.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

VAT (SUPPLY OF SERVICES)

That the Value Added Tax (Supply of Services) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1507) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993 (S.I.) 1993, No. 1606), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[ Mr. Wood.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION DAY

[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That this House believes that, as evidenced by the hardening of international opposition, there are increasingly strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons why it would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom or the rest of the world for Her Majesty's Government to bring the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield (THORP) into operation; notes that the last public inquiry into THORP took place more than fifteen years ago, since when all relevant circumstances have substantially changed; and therefore urges Her Majesty's Government to investigate and make public all relevant aspects of THORP and alternative processes for dealing with spent fuel including dry storage, to ensure full disclosure of the terms of all contracts for the use of THORP and of the calculations supporting its economic justification, and to ensure that all information is available for public comment, independent appraisal and proper cross-examination before any decision is taken.
In The Observer at the weekend, there was a three-line NIB—news in brief—entitled "Small Tremor". It stated:
An earth tremor measuring 3·0 on the Richter scale hit south Cumbria and north Lancashire.
Perhaps it was the Almighty reacting to the fact that, for the first time in 15 years, there is to be a debate in the House on the future of THORP.
The thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield is a very important project. It was commissioned, and approval for it was sought, by British Nuclear Fuels plc back in the late 1970s. BNFL saw THORP as a means of treating partially used nuclear fuel, from home or abroad, from advanced gas-cooled reactors or light-water reactors and, by that reprocessing operation, separate out uranium and plutonium and separately place the waste.
The inspector who held the inquiry in the late 1970s was the very eminent judge, Mr. Justice Parker. It was very clear to him that he was making a decision based on the evidence at the time. It was clear to him that the evidence and circumstances might change and the matter might have to be reconsidered. From the beginning, it was clear that everyone who participated in the debate regarded the decision as conditional.
There were two debates on the matter, one very shortly after the other. The first debate was on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and it was initiated by the Government. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) commended THORP to the House. During that debate, and in the debate in May 1978, many hon. Members on both sides of the House made the conditionality of the project clear.
The second debate was initiated by the then Leader of the Liberal party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). He

initiated the debate by praying against the order that provided planning permission for the Windscale proposal. He said:
In my view, the arguments on both sides are finely balanced and contain many uncertainties. It is because of that that I believe the burden of proof ought to lie quite firmly on the side of those who are pressing this order and who argue that we should now be taking this firm step into the plutonium economy.
My right hon. Friend ended his speech by saying:
This House has a straight choice between looking at the longer-term results of a decision that we take tonight against the undoubted economic value of the Japanese and other contracts which we could acquire. I believe that the onus must lie heavily on the Government, who have brought forward the order, to persuade us that we are wrong. If they do not persuade us beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be right to vote in favour of the order being withdrawn."—[Official Report, 15 May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 111–18.]
In the event, the order was approved by the House, though not without many hon. Members, including the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, making it very clear that it might not be, and should not be, the final decision on the matter.
Today's debate has produced great benefits. We have flushed out where other people stand. We have flushed out the Government's position which—there is general agreement on this—had been secret for several months. The Government received advice, as they were bound to under statute, several months ago. BNFL, the operators, and the opponents wanted to hear a decision about that. However, until the end of last week, not a peep was heard.
Not only have we forced the Government's hand today—and therefore I hope that today's debate is welcome, no matter what view people take on the issue—we have also flushed out two other things. We have flushed out an announcement, which has been made in the past hour, about how the Government intend to respond to the two reports that have been given to them. We have also flushed out the advice provided by the body that advises on radioactive material.
In addition, we have flushed out the Labour party's position. We have forced Labour's hand and it has made a decision. Labour is going to abstain, just as it did in respect of Maastricht—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not all of us.

Mr. Hughes: Well, perhaps not all Labour Members. However, the official Labour position is that it is not for THORP and it is not against it. It is not for a public inquiry and it is not against one.
I challenge Labour Members to tell us what words in the motion they disagree with and why. I challenge them to tell us how, after all this time for deliberation, they cannot either endorse the project which they started in the 1970s or oppose it because circumstances have changed. As with Maastricht and income tax rises or public expenditure cuts, the Labour party is neither for them or against them. Yet again, the Labour party is sitting on the fence.

Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman is talking about flushing out the views and opinions of a variety of people, particularly hon. Members. Does he accept that the work force at Sellafield are one of the best-trained work forces in the country? Is he aware that he could have flushed out the view of that work force if he had been on College green at lunchtime when the work


force made their views known? They want THORP to continue. They believe that it is safe. It is their work and they want it to be allowed to be commissioned.

Mr. Hughes: Of course they do, and understandably so. My hon Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said last week that the workers at Rosyth wanted their work to continue, and, as the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) will be aware, many miners wanted their work to continue last October and this March. However, at the end of the day, the Government and the Conservative party could not endorse that.
Of course the work force argued their case, and the hon. Member for Rochford has raised very proper concerns about that work force and their future in Cumbria which has significant unemployment, if not the highest in the country. I respect the view of the work force. I have spoken to some of the shop stewards and I hope to meet them again when I visit Sellafield in about 10 days' time. I have undertaken to meet the shop stewards and the work force as well as the management.
The hon. Member for Rochford is well versed in these matters and his point alludes also to the fact that there is a quite reasonable debate about the issue and an understandable and honest entitlement to a difference of view. Complex issues such as the general debate about nuclear power and about nuclear weapons, do not necessarily drive to a unanimous conclusion along party lines. People in the Conservative party hold different views about the desirability of THORP and about a public inquiry, as they do in the Labour party and in my party.
Hon Members such as the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) have proper constituency views and we would expect them to speak on the matter. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who represents Dounreay, has made no secret of his views over the years. There is an honest disagreement of views.
Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale spoke in the late 1970s, it has been my party's policy to oppose THORP, because we were not persuaded about it, and to argue that the only basis for supporting reprocessing is when it is necessary on safety grounds. That was the position on which we went into the last general election and to which we are committed as a party.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I do not only take a constituency view: I am a believer in nuclear power.

Mr. Hughes: I may have been unfair to the hon. Gentleman. I tried to make the point that there is a difference in respect of the fundamental issues and that hon. Members are quite properly entitled to take a constituency view. The hon. Member for Workington has argued his views. I hope that he welcomes the debate. as he and I were in a meeting recently when we were asked to try to facilitate such a debate and I have now provided that opportunity.
My colleagues and I do not intend—and it would be improper—for this to be a debate about the future of nuclear energy in Britain. That is a huge and wide subject. We may complain about the fact that we have not had such a debate. We do complain about the fact that the way in which we debate energy policy in this place is nothing

short of mad and we complain that the logical sequence of events should not have been what we have seen, are seeing and are about to see: a debate on coal in the late autumn of 1992 and the spring of 1993; a debate about THORP today; a debate about the national Audit Office view on the economics of the nuclear industry before the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday; a possible announcement about the nuclear review originally heralded to be made by the Minister for Energy at a meeting tomorrow night, although he will no doubt tell us that whether that will be the case, but certainly with a timetable envisaged to be announced before we break for the summer recess—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It might come today.

Mr. Hughes: It might even come today.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister says no, so it will not. And there will be a debate about renewables some time later.
The only point that I want to make about the energy debate is that it is a mad system which does not look at Britain's strategic energy needs first and then decide what the implication is for each of the component parts—for example, whether we should have a nuclear industry, how much coal we should have, whether we should have opencast coal, and so on. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland says, having previously spoken on the subject while holding this brief for our party, it does not help when we have a Government who do not believe in an energy strategy.
Workers at Sellafield, like us and, indeed, the management at Sellafield, wish that the Government had had a clearer strategy on these matters for a long time. There is consensus that the way the Government are acting is no way to run a country, and, with or without the President of the Board of Trade present—we wish him a speedy recovery—it is certainly no way to decide an energy policy.
There is one obvious linked point. What happens at THORP and the contracts at THORP are relevant to the economic viability of nuclear power and nuclear energy. A very timely article in today's issue of The Guardian made that point very clear. I do no more than allude to part of that article, but it makes it very clear that there is a battle royal going on between BNFL on the one hand and Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear on the other about who underwrites the risk. Unless we make that clear, it could make all the difference to the viability of the nuclear energy industry. Indeed, there is a strong argument from the nuclear energy industry to take the THORP equation—the reprocessing issue—out altogether. Some believe that they would be better served if that were not part of the equation.

Mr. Dalyell: Some of us were the guests of Robin Jeffrey and James Hann of Scottish Nuclear. We asked them, and they were quite clear that there was no animosity of any kind whatever along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friends say, they would say that, wouldn't they? The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is eminent in these matters. It is clearly a matter of controversy where the liability lies. One of the


things that are apparent from the contracts as they were originally drafted and as they have been in the public domain—one criticism is that they are not generally in the public domain—is that it is not clear exactly where liability lies. The hon. Member for Linlithgow is entitled to challenge that point, and, if he is correct, I hope that the Government will tell us whether that matter has been resolved or whether there is still a dispute. The Minister is in a better position than anybody else to tell us that.

Mr. Dalyell: I am sorry to interrupt once again. That was said in the presence of the former Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark). It was only 10 days ago. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman has to accept it.

Mr. Hughes: I was making the point, with which the hon. Gentleman will agree, that the finances of the nuclear industry will be different if we include or exclude the prospective financial benefit to Britain of the THORP process. That is an uncontroversial point and I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow will accept it.

Mr. Richard Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will give way one more time and then I want to make the substantive part of my speech.

Mr. Page: At the time of the Parker inquiry, I had the privilege to represent Workington, and I am also a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Leaving to one side the aspect that it could cost 2,000 jobs and the cost of£2 billion, I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman does his economic calculations, he will take into account the compensation that this country might have to pay if we do not go ahead with the THORP process: that has been estimated at£5 billion. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hughes: That would be a very good point if, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) says, we had seen the contracts. If the contracts were in the public domain, as the Government committed themselves to doing at Rio in respect of environmental information, we could see the compensation clause. With respect, as someone whose job used to be commercial contracts before I came to this place, I know that what they do and do not include is highly relevant, and they can make a difference of billions of pounds; but they are not in the public domain and until they are the figures will be speculative. Also, it is not acceptable for Parliament to accept the view only of BNFL, which clearly has a vested interest, as the hon. Gentleman will accept.

Mr. Page: I made the point that I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. The report came forward with the endorsement of the National Audit Office. Is the hon. Gentleman calling into account the National Audit Office's integrity on this matter?

Mr. Hughes: The National Audit Office, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has just produced a report which is to go to the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday. It makes it clear that the costs of decommissioning are uncertain, to put it neutrally, and it certainly does not endorse the figures that have been put forward by BNFL and others. In answer to the point about the Committee's

earlier report, what is not clear—the NAO did not say that it was clear—is what the automatic compensation entitlement would be.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it is not clear. First, it is not clear in what form the waste might be able to be sent back within the contract. There is a debate about substitution, and I shall refer to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee report in a minute. Secondly, it is also not clear whether the contract would be fulfilled if BNFL—Britain—held on to the waste and put it into dry storage as opposed to reprocessing it.
There are many ways in which the contract might be able to be honoured without any compensation having to be paid. As the former hon. Member for the relevant seat, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) might like to persuade the chairman of BNFL to give us a copy of the contract. We could all then take legal advice and we would all be the wiser. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: For the last time; it is very important.

Mr. Hughes: No. I have given way once.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman knows what is coming.

Mr. Hughes: No, I do not know what is coming. I have given way once. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will be called if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman is frit.

Mr. Hughes: I am certainly not frit. We put the subject on the agenda, for heaven's sake.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not give way?

Mr. Hughes: Because I have even better points to make. and I am about to make them.
In our motion, we make one general point and three specific points, and we call for one specific conclusion. We make the general point that there is growing international opposition to the reprocessing of spent fuel in a way that increases the amount of uranium and plutonium in the world. My hon. and learned Friend for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will address that matter, too. It is very clear that, over 10 years, the process will add about 60 extra tonnes to the global plutonium surplus of which there is already plenty.
I cite nothing less than the most radical and non-Conservative document, The Economist, and an article written only earlier this month. It is clear that the risk of proliferation, particularly in the former Soviet states, is now considerable and that article argues strongly against it. Not only the Administration in the United States but two senior members of Congress are now putting into Congress Bills a provision to make sure that there is a control that could, at the time of the renewal of the non-proliferation treaty in 1995, actually make the


THORP process illegal. I ask the Minister to address that matter. When the Euratom treaty is renegotiated, the process itself may offend against international law.
There is that growing international opposition, but there is growing international opposition much nearer home. Earlier this month, in Berlin, the member states of the Paris commission on prevention of marine pollution from land based sources met to consider what to do about the Sellafield plant. By a majority of nine to two, including four countries that have customers of BNFL within their borders, they voted, including other matters, to request
information on the need for spent fuel reprocessing …
a full environmental impact assessment;
the demonstration that the…discharges are based upon the use of the Best Available Techniques
and that they be consulted before THORP goes ahead. Only in the past fortnight, a motion was tabled in the European Parliament asking for a public inquiry.
There is increasing evidence in Japan—one of the big customers—that there is growing public discontent. That is not answered by a newspaper advertisement this week, which appeared to answer the protest from the Japanese last week. We discover that the advertisment was placed not only by the Japanese utilities but, apparently, in association with BNFL. That is hardly an impartial response. Finally, it is only one year ago this month that the Prime Minister signed us up to principles in Rio, especially article 10 of the Rio declaration which stated that we were committed to full environmental information.
There is growing international concern, and I break it into three areas—I can only be brief, because the debate obviously must allow hon. Members fully to participate. Those three areas are economic, environmental and proliferation. I have alluded to proliferation and I do not intend to elaborate on that now. It is a fairly obvious point that if a process produces uranium and plutonium, and that plutonium is available to be used, even though there may be legal constraints for nuclear weapons, one has increased the danger of nuclear escalation in the world.
I shall deal with the economic point. The figures are difficult to work out because we have not seen the contracts and the market for the product is not nearly as buoyant as it was in 1978. They are also difficult to work out, because, although there may be contracts for the next 10 years, THORP is meant to have a life of about 25 years, and considerable extra costs of decommissioning are added once one starts to operate the plant.
A lot of money has been spent on building the plant and getting it ready for operation, but there is a history of white elephants in Britain and other countries The argument is not how much we have spent and whether we can afford not to go on, but whether it is the wonderful earner economically for Britain, that BNFL has told us that it will be. Unless the figures are in the public domain and can be examined, and people can cross-examine on them, the economic case cannot be clearly made out.
An important part of the economic case relates to jobs. It is not clear how many jobs at Sellafield might be at risk. I accept that it is in the order of between 1,500 and 2,500. Any job lost is a job that one certainly should try to preserve. I tell the people of Cumbria directly that those of us who advance this argument do not do so with no care whether people should have work—I say that as the

Member representing a constituency with double or more the unemployment level of either Workington or Copeland—but we ask whether there is an acceptable alternative.
Well validated figures suggest that, if we take the dry storage option, which is much less environmentally damaging, we could have many more jobs on that site than we would have through the reprocessing option. We could have many more jobs and many less dangerous ones. That is another question which needs to be examined, because some people have been taken on ready for the site to be up and running and will be laid off in any event as they will probably not be able to be kept in construction or operating jobs in the interim period if there is further delay, as the Government announced today that there will be.
More importantly, one must distinguish between the number of people whose jobs will be operating such a plant and the prospective thousands of jobs that there would be over a period of up to 10 years in constructing a dry storage facility to honour our international obligations or national contracts. In all probability, according to much of the evidence, such a facility would give much more work than is currently envisaged for West Cumbria or Sellafield in particular.

Mr. Keith Mans: The hon. Gentleman has asked for a lot of evidence relating to contracts and other matters. Can he outline his evidence that suggests that a dry store facility would employ more people than the reprocessing plant? On top of that, can he tell us what one does when one has stored the specific materials for some time? Is he suggesting that the materials should be stored for ever?

Mr. Hughes: I shall deal with the first question first. Many people have done studies of the alternative job implications for a dry storage facility. I have taken advice from at least three sources about what the alternatives would be. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the best answer that I can now, and I will be happy to pursue the matter with him later.
In option 1, commissioning THORP—the proposal supported by the Government—BNFL estimates that the number of jobs in the THORP division would be about 850, probably plus a few. Jobs related to the THORP operation but in the Magnox division would probably be in the order of 500. That is a total of 1,350. Abandoning THORP and building a dry storage facility, and management of it, would provide about 520 jobs plus about 500 support jobs and thousands of construction jobs in the foreseeable five years or more.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They are juggling around with my constituents—throwing them in the air.

Mr. Hughes: We are absolutely not throwing the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the air—we are trying to give them much more long-term employment than they might get from a process that may have no takers at all in 10 years' time. [Interruption.] I quoted the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe in long-term economic solutions, not short-term ones, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents agree.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not.

Mr. Dalyell: Name your sources.

Mr. Hughes: I will finish my point, then answer the question. The third point is the environmental one. That point is made best by, first, a Minister writing in the last month and, secondly, a report that has come out only today.

Mr. Dalyell: Who are your sources?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman can bellow all he likes. I told him that I will answer his question but finish my point first. This is my speech for a change. We get many more chances to make speeches on subjects of our choosing than he does because of the unfairness of the system. However, that is an argument for elsewhere.
On 25 May, Baroness Cumberlege, an Under-Secretary of State for Health, endorsed by letter—I have a copy here—the comments of the committee that gives advice to the Government on the medical aspects of radiation in the environment. That committee considered the draft authorisations for discharges from Sellafield and said that it had not had adequate time to consider the discharges and was not satisfied that they were safe. The Minister explicitly set out the position almost exactly a month ago. She said:
I attach a copy of the text of COMARE's response to the authorising Departments on this matter. The Department of Health, which was also invited to comment on the proposals, has endorsed COMARE's comments.
Only today, we have flushed out—this is another achievement of my hon. Friends and myself—the advice—[Laughter]—Conservative Members should not laugh. It is true.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is true.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that support from the hon. Gentleman. The advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to the Government was in my tray at 3.15 pm today. It says:
RWMAC had originally been requested to provide advice to the Secretary of State by July 1992 but was unable to meet this deadline because insufficient information was provided by BNFL…The advice submitted by RWMAC to the Secretary of State is not as comprehensive as RWMAC would have wished because information that was requested from BNFL is still outstanding.
Waste equivalence is an important point to do with substitution and the question whether it can be converted and compacted so that only the high level is sent back and the intermediate or low level is retained, or vice versa.
The radiological basis chosen by BNFL for calculating waste equivalencies has not yet been agreed by BNFL and its overseas customers.
The RWMAC advised that until there is agreement between BNFL and its overseas customers on the technical basis of substitution, the BNFL substitution exercise should not be approved. That recommendation was made not 20 or 10 years ago, but today, 15 years after the plant was approved.
The RWMAC made two other points:
The substitution scenario proposed by BNFL depends on the Nirex repository being available to accommodate the foreign intermediate-level waste and low-level waste resulting from the reprocessing by 2005 and is based on a best case return time of the ground water from the repository to the surface environment".
Nirex has said that the repository will not be commissioned before the year 2007 at the earliest and the RWMAC has said that waste is unlikely to be disposed of before 2010, if the repository is sited in Sellafield.
As the site will not be available in 2005, it will be necessary to evaluate the implications for both the UK site currently used for the disposal of low-level waste"—
next door at Drigg—
and for various interim ILW stores.
The RWMAC advised the Secretary of State that until the studies are complete, it was not in a position to be able to comment fully on the radiological and environmental impact for the United Kingdom of the introduction of substitution.
There is some final advice to BNFL that is relevant to the Government. The RWMAC also advises that BNFL should
examine to case for the return of intermediate-level waste to determine whether the return of foreign waste in this form, rather than the return of equivalent quantities of vitrified high-level waste is viable.
The RWMAC suggests that BNFL should
document its case demonstrating that retention of foreign intermediate-level waste resulting from reprocessing will not cause health or safety concerns to the UK population.…There should be a trial return of high-level waste.
The RWMAC advice sets out a number of issues which the committee believes needs to be addressed by BNFL and the Government before the substitution of high-level waste by intermediate and low-level waste should be approved. The RWMAC
looks forward to receiving this additional information and at that time would hope to be in a position where it could advise more fully on the BNFL proposals for substitution".
That is not scaremongering from political parties, but information from the Government's official advisers on the medical effects of radiation, endorsed by Health Ministers, and information from the relevant advisory committee which says that it does not have the facts.
Not long ago, the controversial proposal for Torness in Scotland was the subject of a public inquiry. The inspector made it clear in his report that dry storage was not only a possible option and a viable option, but a reasonable alternative option. My friends in Scotland, who have campaigned for many years against the Torness plant, would agree that as it now appears that Government policy—on the advice of inspectors—is not universally and unilaterally in favour of reprocessing, but considers that there is an alternative, the entire logic of THORP is questionable.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, when he quotes the numbers of jobs that would be available in dry storage, that, at the recent public inquiry into the proposed dry storage at Torness, Scottish Nuclear Ltd. said that the store would require only 10 to 15 staff during loading and that thereafter, staff requirements would reduce to those required for occasional monitoring and maintenance? In that light, how can the hon. Gentleman talk of 1,000 jobs in dry storage?

Mr. Hughes: That would be a fair—[Interruption.] That would be a fair and relevant comparison if the size of the two plants were equivalent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is 100 times as large?

Mr. Hughes: No. They are not equivalent. We know what the contracts currently placed for THORP are, and we know the contracting party and the amount of work involved. The hon. Gentleman quotes figures, which I


quoted, for the far smaller element in the debate—maintenance of the dry storage operation—but has left out the amount of people needed for the construction.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sub-contractors.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, but many of the jobs that have been created in Sellafield have been sub-contractors' jobs, for building.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They come and go.

Mr. Hughes: Of course, but by and large, they are local employees.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We are talking about long-term jobs at THORP.

Mr. Hughes: We are talking about some long-term jobs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such facts need to be the subject of a public debate. That is why the Liberal Democrats are specifically proposing a public inquiry. It is no good the Minister laughing, because, by law, he may be obliged to hold one. He may not have been in the House—he is a contemporary of mine and I was not present either—in 1960, when the Radioactive Substances Act was passed. He may not have followed the amendment process to that Act in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Under sections 11 and 12 of the 1960 Act, it seems that there is a strong case that, once the reports have been given to his two right hon. Friends who are the determining authority—the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for the Environment, for whom the inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution acts—there is an obligation to consult on that report.
Surprise, surprise, today at last, the Government have responded to that request. In a written answer from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)—it may be a planted question—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here."] The hon. Gentleman is not here. The question was tabled a couple of days ago, and only after it was announced that we were having today's debate. The Secretary of State for the Environment said that he had received the report and that he and his colleague had considered it. He makes an earth-shattering proposal:
My right hon. Friend and I propose that there should be a further round of consultation".
I pause to tell the workers in Cumbria that the Liberal Democrats are not saying that there should be further delay, but that the Government are saying that there should be a further round of consultation. In that consultation, the questions raised by the response to the HM IP draft authorisations should be considered. I might add that 108 local authorities, as respondents, are opposed to the operation of the plant.
The Secretary of State's officials are writing to BNFL seeking further information. The written answer continues:
I shall make their reply available for public comment, together with other material. My right hon. Friend and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under the Act until after this further consultation.
There we have it: the stories in the press were true. The Government were not going to make a decision. The arguments put to them, from advice given by leading counsel to Greenpeace among others, about the legal case,

have resulted in the Government's agreeing that they have to have further consultation. They propose simply to write to BNFL, to seek information, and to make their reply available for public comment, together with unspecified other material. How on earth can there be an objective assessment of jobs, of the economics issue and the environmental issue, unless the people and their evidence are put in the public domain and cross-examined?
We do not want a long delay. There need not be one. Mr. Justice Parker's inquiry took 100 days. An inquiry could be held and a decision could be made before the end of the year, providing that the Government and the system move quickly. There would then be an up-to-date appraisal of the facts this year, as was suggested might be necessary in 1978.
One does not embark on a process that has hidden additional costs of decommissioning before the cost of doing that is known. One should evaluate the radiological impact and wait for the judgment of the case where families have brought an action against BNFL alleging that leukaemia results from discharges from Sellafield. I am reliably told that the judgment is likely by the autumn. One can get the facts. My hon. Friends and I put a simple proposition to the House. We want the facts, and we propose the most independent way in which to get them.
I shall answer the question that I was asked, and I shall then make the case for the Government to reconsider. I answer now the hon. Member for Linlithgow to whom I can show the figures, and I am happy to go through them with him. The best advice that I was given on the calculations for the job prospects was by Friends of the Earth, which did the first analysis, and by Media Natura, which did the second analysis. I also received advice from the third analysis, which was done on the basis of local research into job prospects in Cumbria. I can go through the documents with the hon. Member for Linlithgow. I have them here and they are available in the House this afternoon.
My hon. Friends and I believe that what the Government have not done by their answer is preclude the option of a public inquiry. The Government have not ruled out a public inquiry. It is a bit like the public expenditure review, in which nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. There is still a chance for the Government to take that course. If they do not, they risk protracting the commissioning of THORP or the decision not to commission it even longer.
The Government know as well as I do that there is strong legal advice that, on the basis of planning guidance, of our obligations under the Rio convention, and, more explicitly, of the requirement for an environmental impact assessment for this project under the directive passed by the European Community in 1985, which is now law here, and, above all, of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they have an obligation to ensure that the facts are put into the public domain. If the Government do not go down that road now, they will prejudice the very jobs that they seek to protect, they will risk the project that they support and, worse, they will allow Britain to go ahead with the development of a project which the rest of the world increasingly regards as undesirable and uneconomic.
We argue for jobs and sanity. We hope that the Government do not press their amendment. If they do, we hope that that is not their final word, because we believe that they are wrong.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the management and workforce of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the completion of its high technology thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield; welcomes the 3,000 jobs, mainly in the North West, which the plant supports; recognises that around 90 per cent. of its £1,850 million capital cost was spent with British industry; notes that the plant is needed to fulfil the customers' requirements for reprocessing, represented by contracts already won worth £9 billion; recalls that it is a major example of international inward investment which the chairmen of the ten Japanese nuclear power generators strongly endorsed last week; expresses confidence in the non-proliferation arrangements that underlie the plant's work for all the overseas customers; and, subject to receipt by BNFL of such consents as are required by law, supports the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date.'.
The choice of debate today by the Liberal Democrat party is interesting. It can choose four half-days of debate this Session. Not for the Liberal Democrats a debate on the issues about which they claim to care really passionately. There is no debate about proportional representation. There is no debate about local income tax. There is no debate about the economy, nationally or locally. There is none of that.
What do they choose to debate? They choose to table a motion which, if passed, would lead directly to the loss of 3,000 jobs, net of dry storage considerations. If passed, the motion would lead to the closure of a high-technology plant. If passed, it would lead directly to a loss of confidence by overseas investors and by our major trading partners. That says a lot about the priorities of the Liberal Democrats.
Despite the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I turn briefly to the general tone of his remarks. What did he do? He took a series of comments out of context. He deliberately misconstrued Government reports and responses. He relied extensively—as, to be fair, he admitted—on the briefing of such eminently objective organisations as Friends of the Earth. It was a pretty shoddy performance even by the standards of his own party.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the most shoddy part of this afternoon's event was his own laughter at the suggestion of a public inquiry? Why does he find the idea of a public inquiry on this most important of issues funny?

Mr. Eggar: It is instructive that the hon. Gentleman is the first to jump to the defence of the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps he should join the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on this point. Is it not typical of the Liberal Democrats that they go at length into the difficulties of the issues? They put forward an analysis, bogus though it may be, and then come back with the magic solution—a public inquiry.
What do they want? Do they want government by public inquiry? That may make sense to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but he knows perfectly well that it does not make sense to Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members—and, to the credit of the Labour party, it does not make sense to the Labour party either.
What the Labour party and the Conservative party want are firm decisions in accordance with the legal constraints and the legal framework within which we operate.
I welcome the chance to set the record straight today. In the past few months, a great deal has been said about THORP by unelected pressure groups and by people speaking at the prompting of such groups. My right hon. and hon. Friends may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). In that answer he outlines the steps that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are taking on BNFL's request for revised discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site. As the House knows, there are copies of the relevant answer in the Vote Office.
It is important that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey listens to this, because he went some way to misconstrue the answer, which explains that my right hon. Friends intend to undertake further consultation before—I stress the word "before"—taking final decisions on the authorisations. The answer states:
the inspectorates have concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations, save for some minor amendments/corrections. In their judgment, the provisions of the draft authorisations would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain, and the environment generally.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.

Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will repeat that point. I wish that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey had also referred to it in his remarks.
As the House would expect, in addressing the matter of the Sellafield discharge authorisations and their relevance to THORP, the Government are careful to ensure that their general functions in relation to the nuclear industry are properly distinguished from the specific statutory responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
What Conservative Members say today does not constrain the statutory discretion of my right hon. Friends. They have to make their own decisions, although I am sure that they will take note of today's proceedings. It would be wrong to seek to constrain or to prejudge them in the exercise of their functions. Certainly nothing that I say should be construed as seeking to do so.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As this is an important issue, neither of us should quote selectively. I add to the quotation given by the Minister by quoting the third short paragraph. The answer says:
However, a substantial number of the responses raised questions as to the justification for the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP), and therefore whether that part of the site's total discharges arising from this plant should be allowed. Other respondents expressed their support for THORP. These questions were not dealt with by the inspectorate because of the wider issues raised.
That is one of the considerations. Logically, because it is also part of the answer which has led to the conclusion, there must be a further round of consultation.

Mr. Eggar: Yes, of course those issues are relevant, and my right hon. Friends have to take into account the legal background against which they operate. They have made


clear what the next steps will be. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I do not propose to take final decisions on the exercise of our functions under Radioactive Substances Act 1960 until after this further consultation. There is no disagreement.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I should like to go back to the paragraph which says:
However, a substantial number of the responses raised questions as to the justification of the operation of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.
Why were these matters riot dealt with six or nine months ago? During the course of the consultations, such representations were received as early as January. Ministers knew in August or September that arguments about that aspect of the matter were being raised. Has there been a cock-up, preventing these matters from being dealt with? Did Ministers fail to give the right remit? Is that the cause of the delay?

Mr. Eggar: Bearing in mind the legal position of my right hon. Friends, I have to be careful in this area. Because of the judicial implications, the precise decision of my right hon. Friends is a matter that the hon. Gentleman should refer to them.

Mr. Dalyell: As one who is dismayed that there is not to be an announcement that THORP should go ahead straight away, without further consultation—as I believe it should—may I put two questions to the Minister? I am told by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the delay is costing £2 million per week. Do the Government's own figures confirm that? Secondly, is i t true that compensation of up to £5,000 million could be claimed? That figure has been given in the debate already. Is it the Government's figure?

Mr. Eggar: The estimate of £2 million per week was provided, I believe, by British Nuclear Fuels plc. I think that I can confirm that that is the company's figure.

Mr. Flynn: What is the true figure?

Mr. Eggar: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's yelling, from a sedentary position, "What is the true figure?" The figure was provided by BNFL.
With regard to the £5,000 million to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred, I understand that in certain scenarios, under the terms of the contract, compensation of that order could be due to BNFL's customers if THORP were cancelled and were never to go into operation. The Liberal party ought to stop and think about the consequences of urging such action.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Let us see the contracts.

Mr. Eggar: That remark from the hon. Gentleman is a typical and classical cop-out, as he knows. He knows perfectly well that the summary of those contracts was made available at the inquiry a number of years ago.

Mr. Hughes: I have copies.

Mr. Eggar: If the hon. Gentleman has copies, I do not know why he doubts the figures.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: One answer would be to let us see the contracts. However, there is another way. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of Parliament. If he were prepared to look at the contracts

and to assure us that his interpretation of them is the same as that of BNFL, would the Minister be prepared to accept his word?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), are hoping to catch my eye during this debate. If these long interventions continue, the hon. Gentleman may not be successful.

Mr. Eggar: I am rather enjoying being a spectator during my own speech.
There is today, I suspect, a sense of deja vu as we talk about THORP. In 1978 the two major parties in the House of Commons supported the construction of THORP, while the Liberals opposed it. Now, 14 years later, the plant has been built and is ready to operate, advance orders amounting to £9 billion have been placed and staff have been recruited and trained. Despite all this—despite the clear evidence of the success of the project—the Liberal party calls for a public inquiry.
Let me qualify what I have just said about the Liberal party's call for a public inquiry. There is a glaring omission from the list of names of those who have signed this motion. Where is the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? He is not even here to listen to the debate. Why is that? The hon. Gentleman understands the motion's implications for his constituents and for the nuclear industry. I believe—though, as he is a very discreet individual, I cannot know for sure—that he would rather absent himself from the debate than be forced to disassociate himself from the case being made by his hon. Friends.
In a short debate last December the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) supported the plant, subject to the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on the disharge authorisations. I am happy to agree with that approach. I agree also with the views of the director-general of the Confederation of British Industry who, when he visited the plant in May, said:
The case for commissioning is an extremely strong one, and I have been very impressed with what I have seen and heard today.
I agree, too, with the author of a letter to the Financial Times which described BNFL and THORP as a flagship for Britain. The Liberal Democrats might do rather better if they listened rather more to that author—Sir Ian Wrigglesworth. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raises his eyes to heaven. How typical that is. A former leading and very widely respected member of his party has now stated his view very publicly, but the hon. Gentleman dismisses it with a lift of his eyes to heaven, as though it were of no account whatever.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a Minister now, and not a member of the Cambridge union, as he was when I first met him. That being the case, he should rise above such an approach. I stated explicitly that on this issue there is proper, honest dissent in all parties. Unlike the hon. Gentleman's party, my party has conferences and debates. We take decisions by majorities. I have enunciated the policy of my party. I do not dismiss Sir Ian Wrigglesworth's views or those of my hon. Friend. I was honest enough to admit that there is a difference of view, and to suggest that politicians may know less than inspectors at independent inquiries.

Mr. Eggar: I would have rather more respect for the hon. Gentleman's views if he had bothered to visit the plant, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan and I have done. The hon. Gentleman subscribed to the manifesto and has drafted this motion. He has been throwing people's jobs in the air as though they mattered not at all, but he has not bothered to go to the plant. He does not have the guts to go and see for himself. What is more, he has been invited.

Mr. Hughes: And accepted.

Mr. Eggar: And accepted. That is typical. The hon. Gentleman will go there after subscribing to the Liberal party's manifesto and mounting this debate. He will sneak up there, and I suppose that he will go round the plant and say that his view has not been changed. I challenge him to give some of his time to the work force. Let him have a talk with the unions. Let him argue his case.

Ms Clare Short: Like the Minister?

Mr. Eggar: I have on numerous occasions met the BNFL unions, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) knows perfectly well. I should like to hear the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey argue how other people's jobs are to be redistributed round the economy. Let him explain the advantages to the skilled workers—how they would be employed in dry storage. Let him for once expose himself to the difficulty of making decisions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister does not listen. I said in my speech that I had accepted the invitation before the motion was tabled and before I knew that there was to be a debate. I also said that I had had some discussions with the work force and the management and that I had agreed to have more. There are more people unemployed in my constituency than in that of the Minister. I do not throw jobs around, but the Minister condemned 30,000 miners to lose their jobs. We did not do that.

Mr. Eggar: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's report of his meeting with the unions at BNFL and to his seeing the THORP plant, after which I hope that he will reflect carefully on his position.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I am willing to give way, but I am conscious of the time and the fact that other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to express the view from the other side of the Irish sea. All Northern Ireland Members are concerned about the effects of THORP on the Irish sea. I impress on the Minister the fact that few people in Northern Ireland will be satisfied or will have their concerns allayed until every fact is known and every possible safeguard is put in place.

Mr. Eggar: I am aware of that concern. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, under section 37 of the Euratom treaty arrangements, proper investigation has been carried out into the radiation effects of THORP. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the scientific findings, which should alleviate concern on the other side of the Irish sea.
The plant has been completed and all those who have seen it have been greatly impressed, not only by the plant but by the commitment of the work force and its preoccupation with safety. The hon. Member for Clackmannan spoke about that. There has been much debate about the importance to the area of the 3,000 jobs which flow from and are associated with the plant. Some 2,000 of those jobs are in west Cumbria alone.
The plant was built to meet the needs of its proven United Kingdom and overseas customers. Those needs are not customer aspirations but binding contracts totalling £9 billion, and half the contracts are from overseas. That in itself is a major export achievement by BNFL. In addition, THORP is a major example of inward investment. Some £1.6 billion has been advanced by overseas customers towards the capital cost of the plant, and £1 billion of that came from Japanese customers. The Government greatly value the long-standing nuclear co-operation between this country and Japan which made that investment possible.

Mr. Dalyell: May I confirm that there is no reason whatever why the debate cannot continue until 10 o'clock and that only custom and convention limit it to 7 o'clock? That is my information from the Clerk, so we are not short of time. Does the Minister recall the occasion on which he and I spoke from the platform of the Trade Unions for Safe Nuclear Energy, under the chairmanship of Bill Morgan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union? The Minister said at that time that general relations with Japan were affected by the THORP decision. Will he expand on that important matter?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's initial point is a matter for the business managers. I remember the event that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I look forward to speaking again at the union's annual dinner later this year. On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I spoke about the major inward investment by the Japanese and said that the plant was probably the single largest export element of our trade with Japan. I said that, if there were serious problems about the start-up of that plant, it would almost inevitably have implications for Japan's perception of the United Kingdom as a trading partner and as a place in which to invest.
Some hon. Members have argued that somehow those major customers of THORP were misguided to enter into these contracts, which are inappropriate. If there was ever any truth in that allegation, it has been completely disproved by the advertisements in The Times on Wednesday by the 10 Japanese electric power companies—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to dismiss that on the grounds that in some way BNFL was associated with that advertisement.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the chairmen of the major electricity generating companies in Japan would append their names to an advertisement just because somebody wanted to organise it? Of course not. They must have considered the matter extremely carefully and would have wanted to make a clear statement of their views because people such as the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal party were misconstruing their stance. Those Japanese companies felt that it was time to make their views clear.
As the Government have made clear, it is for the owners of spent nuclear fuel to make the commercial decision


about whether to reprocess. In recent months, various pressure groups have been telling the world that those customers are somehow wrong and that they should not want the reprocessing. Some of the pressure groups have gone so far as to suggest that BNFL should take the initiative and tell its customers that their choice is wrong.
What sort of business practice is that? It is rather like telling customers in a car showroom that it is immoral to buy a car and that it would be better to ride out of the showroom on a bicycle. Such a policy may be appropriate for the Liberal Democrats, but it is totally unrealistic in today's commercial world.
The lobby groups have recently started to go down a new track. They are going through the pretence of showing concern for the economic success of the industry. I say "pretence" because, of course, the real agenda of the lobby groups is purely and simply to shut down the nuclear industry. Those groups suggest that the United Kingdom and its overseas customers would all be better off if there were some kind of deal to abandon THORP.
It has always been open to THORP customers to tell BNFL that, on reflection, they do not want the plant to operate and are prepared to make other arrangements. What have they done? In 1989, almost all THORP's overseas customers took up BNFL's offer of additional reprocessing capacity. The chairmen of the two major German customers, RWE and Veba, recently wrote to BNFL to confirm that they would fulfil the contracts into which they had entered. I have already mentioned last week's advertisement by Japanese customers.
Much has been said recently about the dangers of plutonium. It is worth commenting on the nature of plutonium and its creation because there has been much misinformation. Plutonium is created when nuclear fuel is burnt in a reactor. It is not created by reprocessing. which extracts the plutonium from the spent fuel together with the unused uranium. When that has been done, both materials are available for recycling, which can be undertaken in most existing water-moderated nuclear reactors. The operator can load up to about a third of the reactor with a mixed uranium-plutonium fuel known as MOX fuel. When the plutonium is recycled as part of MOX fuel, much of it is used up. The use and planned use of MOX technology is increasing world wide and BNFL already has a number of orders or letters of intent to manufacture MOX fuel.
The spent fuel and plutonium have to be managed irrespective of whether there is reprocessing. The Government believe that reprocessing is a proven and safe option. If the plutonium is not managed centrally at Sellafield until recycled, it will have to be dealt with as part of the stored spent fuel. It is for the owners of the spent fuel, having regard to their contractual commitments and the appropriate regulatory requirements, to make the choice.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Why do Britain and Europe need THORP? What useful product will it provide? In the 1970s, that need was justified on the ground of the plutonium that it would produce, which was needed for the fast breeder reactors. The Government have now abandoned that programme and Europe has turned from it, so the demand for plutonium has gone. THORP provides no useful product.

Mr. Eggar: I know that it is a difficult concept for the hon. Gentleman to take on board, but we need THORP because customers have signed contracts and want it. They want to make use of the process carried out at that plant. The customers can decide whether they wish to take the plutonium and store it for future use in fast breeder reactors of for MOX fuel. They are exercising their right to choose what they do with their spent fuel. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman.
It is typical of the hon. Gentleman and his like to want to decide what commercial customers should do with their product. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's question that he wants to deprive the United Kingdom of huge export orders and many thousands of people of jobs in west Cumbria and elsewhere. He should be under no illusion about his motives.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Minister so sure that customers want the fuel, or do they want to avoid responsibility for the cost of cancellation of the contracts? Is he so sure that there is a genuine demand for MOX fuel relative to the fuel costs of enriched uranium?

Mr. Eggar: Customers always have the right to go to BNFL and make alternative proposals. If they decided that they did not want to make use of THORP, costs would be associated with that decision. Customers not only signed up to the original contracts, however, but almost all of them signed up to additional contracts as recently as 1989. A number have expressed interest in signing additional contracts, once THORP has an operating record, beyond the 10 years agreed.
BNFL believes that there will be a demand for a Mox plant, but whether that plant proceeds will depend not only on authorisation from Government, but on customers' willingness to enter into contracts to ensure the economic viability of the plant. The answer will depend, critically, on the attitude of customers. I am sure that BNFL would not proceed unless it was confident that there was a market for the plant and its product.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Dr. Michael Clark: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I should like to press on, but I will give way—for the last time—to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

Dr. Clark: Has it ever occurred to my hon. Friend that, if he had come to the House and suggested that spent nuclear fuel should be put in prepared sites in the ground and covered over—and the process had been given the fancy name of dry storage—there would have been an outcry from everyone in the House and probably throughout the country? I am sure that people would have argued for a proper scientific process to be followed whereby the waste fuel was taken to a proper processing plant and the high radioactive material isolated from the low radioactive material. They would have argued that the fuel that could be reused should be made available for that purpose and that the peril should be concentrated rather than left in the ground in dry storage. Has he ever thought that that might have happened if he had suggested dry storage in the first place?

Mr. Eggar: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. Apart from what he has said, at the end of the


dry storage process, what then? After 50 years, the chances are that a process would be needed, not unlike the THORP one, to deal with the material.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford has recognised only too well, much of the argument against THORP is not an argument against it as a plant or against BNFL, but one aimed at the destruction of the nuclear industry. The opponents of THORP know perfectly well that if they can stop the plant functioning they will deal an effective blow to the underpinning of the nuclear fuel cycle and the operation of the nuclear electric industry. No one should be under any illusions about the motivation of the opponents of THORP. To be fair, for once, to the Liberal Democrats, they know that they share that motivation.

Mr.Geoffrey Dickens: They are disappearing from the Chamber.

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is right.
Whatever the cost in jobs, and whatever the costs in additional charges to electricity consumers, the Liberal Democrats are opposed to nuclear power—and they admit it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey would have been rather more honest if he had not finished his speech by saying that he wanted a public inquiry. He should have said that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the nuclear industry and will do everything that they can to stop its development.
I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the opportunity for a short debate on THORP. Unlike the Minister, I believe that it is entirely right and proper for the Liberal Democrats to select this important and controversial issue for debate.
I suspect that the one achievement—I would not necessarily describe it as such—of the Liberal Democrat motion will have been to precipitate the Government into a firm decision. At least the Government appear to be taking a firm decision to proceed, if their amendment is anything to go by. They have, however, also revealed in a parliamentary answer that was tabled after lunch that they are proposing a further round of consultation.
What sort of consultation can that possibly be, when they have already announced to the entire world in the amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion their view about whether THORP should proceed? The Government are, in effect, saying that they have made up their mind, but that they will consult because, legally, they must be seen to do so. That is not a real, proper, considered process of consultation. It cannot possibly be, because the Government, by what they have said in the amendment, have prejudged it.
It is important for everyone to acknowledge that much has changed since the Parker inquiry. There were five original reasons for embarking on the THORP process: first, plutonium was to be produced for the fast breeder programme; secondly, uranium was to be recovered for re-use; thirdly, it was regarded at the time as the best and, perhaps in some instances, the only means of dealing with spent fuel; fourthly, financial benefit was to be gained from the reprocessing operation; and, fifthly, employment opportunities were to be garnered.
The employment considerations remain as compelling as ever. The impact of any decision taken on the future of Sellafield and the economy of west Cumbria need of course, to be taken carefully into account. Two of the original reasons for proceeding with THORP have, however, lapsed with time.
The fast breeder programme has now been abandoned at national and European levels. We already have a stockpile of some 30 tonnes of plutonium in the United Kingdom from the Magnox reprocessing procedures. THORP would create an additional 30 tonnes a year. There is a world stockpile of some 300 tonnes. What on earth can be the use of extra plutonium now being generated?
Moreover, the recovery of uranium is no longer a competitive exercise. Large quantities of directly mined cheaper uranium are now available and will certainly be so over the 25-year period of THORP's predicted existence.
There is consensus on those two points about plutonium and uranium. Where the debate begins in earnest is over the issue of the right option in waste management in environmental terms for dealing with spent irradiated fuel. That has now become the central nub of the THORP issue.
The Government clearly said in their response to the Environment Select Committee report in 1986 that reprocessing was their favoured option for the disposal of spent fuel. That position now seems to have changed. The Minister for the Environment and Countryside answered a question to me on 24 June. I had asked him:
what is his policy on the preferred option for the disposal of radioactive spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors, as between reprocessing and dry storage".
The answer, on which the Minister for Energy touched this afternoon, was:
It is for the owners of spent fuel to decide on safety, technical and economic grounds whether to reprocess spent fuel from advanced gas-cooled reactors or place it in dry storage."—[Official Report, 24 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 246.]
From that answer and an answer given in June 1989 by the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, the Government appear to express no preference in principle between the reprocessing and dry storage options.
That attitude of no preference from the Government has again been exemplified in the evidence given to the inquiry at Torness into the construction of dry storage facilities there. Giving evidence before the Scottish Office, Mr. Hetherington told the inquiry that he
accepted that circumstances had changed since the Government had made its response to the select committee in 1986. The relative economic advantages of obtaining uranium from reprocessing rather than direct mining had changed, and dry storage of spent fuel had emerged as a practicable possibility.
He went on:
The reprocessing route did not appear to offer any immediate and significant advantages, from a waste management point of view.
So the Government, both in their answers to the House and in the evidence that Government officials have given at Torness, are saying that there are no advantages either way between reprocessing and dry storage. It is interesting to note that the United States, Sweden, Canada, Finland and Spain are all committed solely to the mechanism of direct disposal. They abjure the reprocessing option.
According to the evidence given by Scottish Nuclear Ltd. to the Torness inquiry, BNFL proposes to offer dry storage facilities in conjunction with the Costain


Construction Group. Dry storage is clearly on the practical agenda, BNFL's agenda, as well as on the agenda elsewhere.

Mr. Dickens: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands that dry storage gives the management two options: either to reprocess or to destroy completely—[Interruption.] well, hon. Gentleman know what I mean. Clearly, those options exist if there is a dry storage facility. If for instance, the fast breeder reactor in Monju in Japan is as successful as the Japanese hope, and as we expect, plutonium may suddenly come back into fashion. Therefore, those options are extremely important. It is a choice between disposal—that is the word that I was looking for—and reprocessing. That is what dry storage offers for future generations.

Mr. Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman corrected himself, because radioactive waste can never be totally destroyed, at least not for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. He fails to recognise that there must be disposal of something at the end of the day, whether reprocessing or dry storage is chosen. Because reprocessing creates a substantial quantity of intermediate-level waste, it cannot simply he dumped in the ground at Drigg, where low-level waste tends to go, but must be properly disposed of in a monitored fashion. Whether we choose reprocessing or dry storage, we have the problem of ultimate disposal.

Mr. Dalyell: In case there is any misunderstanding, it should also be put on the record that Scottish Nuclear has a major fixed price contract with THORP, and Robin Jeffrey and James Hann made it clear that they thought that THORP was very important.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect although I do not necessarily agree with everything that he always says on this issue, is right on this point. Scottish Nuclear has a contract for reprocessing at THORP and, as far as I am aware, intends to make use of it if THORP goes ahead. It is also exploring the option of dry storage as an alternative for some of its future spent fuel. It looks very much as if, for the spent fuel beyond the initial contract with THORP, it is likely to opt for the dry storage route.
The Government therefore appear to have no distinct preference between the two options. What, then, is the best waste management option? A number of considerations must be borne in mind. First, reprocessing certainly reduces the amount of high-level waste that is created, but it increases substantially the quantity of low-level waste that is generated. That is confirmed in RWMAC's. 11 th report, which states:
Reprocessing increases the volume of radioactive waste and the amounts of radioactive material released into the environment".
Secondly, the Select Committee on the Environment noted from paragraph 186 of the report by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in Manitoba, that
if anything oxide fuel was more stable and more leach resistant than vitrified waste".
Thirdly—it is the point to which the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) alluded—eventual deep direct disposal must be entertained as an option, whatever intermediate route is chosen, either reprocessing or storage.

Fourthly, it is crucial to know the precise arrangements for substitution of the waste generated if THORP goes ahead and what the waste stream actually generated will be. I submit that that crucial matter, even with the publication, after a seven-month delay, of the RWMAC advice to the Minister, remains in doubt. The RWMAC report says that issues are still outstanding in relation to future disposal facilities and that those issues need to be determined properly before a final decision can be taken.
The chairman of RWMAC, Professor John Knill, told
The Independent:
the full range of evaluations has not yet been done. We have asked for them and have not seen them. It is necessary that this should be done before Thorp goes into operation".
It is clear from RWMAC's agenda for its 1 July meeting that some of its members have remaining doubts and questions beyond what is expressed in the report.
I do not believe that a proper decision can be taken on the crucial question of the best environmental waste management option, whether it be reprocessing or dry storage, until the report published today has been properly considered, its arguments analysed and—this is crucial—any additional comments have been sought from RWMAC.
The other principal environmental issue at stake is that of emissions. HMIP published its draft authorisations last year. Although it is true that it proposed lower overall emission authorisations for Sellafield, it envisaged higher discharges. In fact, the projected discharges will be about 75 per cent. of the proposed authorisation limits. Again, we know from the report published this afternoon that the original authorisations will be substantially agreed, but there are still some questions that I must ask.
First, when will the full HMIP report be made public? The Government have committed themselves to that and we want to know when it will emerge. Secondly, how do the proposed discharge levels compare with those that currently exist at Cap La Hague, where I understand that discharges of both alpha and beta activity are substantially lower than anything envisaged at Sellafield.
Thirdly, in reaching its conclusion, has HMIP taken into account the new recommendation from the National Radiological Protection Board that 0·3 mSv a year of radiation impact on the general public should be used as the yardstick against which to judge emission authorisations? It is clear that H MIP's report will have to be seen in full and considered by the public before a final decision can be taken on the environmental impact of the plant.
The environmental considerations, the best waste management options and their different impact and the full effects of emissions and discharges must take primacy of place in reaching a conclusion on how, when and if THORP should go ahead. Therefore, a full environmental impact assessment is needed, coupled with wide public debate. Indeed, the Paris commission meeting on 16 June made that a virtual necessity.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Some time ago, an all-party committee said that the Irish sea was the most polluted sea in the world. What is the hon. Gentleman's response to the suggestion of a ten fold increase in both atmospheric and maritime discharges of radioactive materials? That pollution of our environment must he ended, especially in respect of the Irish sea.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify one of the problems of opting for reprocessing, which


generates large quantities of intermediate and low-level waste. A great many of the low-level discharges go straight into the sea, which is why a proper environmental impact assessment of the discharge pattern from Sellafield is required.

Mr. Dalyell: What reply would my hon. Friend give to our right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who says that THORP already has £9 billion of secure orders? Our right hon. Friend, who is the local constituency Member of Parliament, also says that delay is causing losses of £2 million a week and that that money is needed to help boost investment in west Cumbria. What answer would my hon. Friend give to his shadow Cabinet colleague?

Mr. Smith: I am aware of the legitimate constituency arguments that our right hon. Friend has always made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is abroad on official duties; nevertheless, he is taking a keen interest in our debate. The figure that my hon. Friend quoted is slightly inaccurate, because BNFL puts the loss at £2·4 million a week. I accept that with every week that passes there is a loss of income to BNFL, but that should not prevent us from ensuring that we get the decision right.
It is important that we make the right decision because the moment that THORP is brought into operation, the entire decommissioning costs will be incurred. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that the decision to open THORP is absolutely right. Even on BNFL's figures, the decommissioning costs are, at current prices, about £900 million. A few weeks of delay may be necessary to ensure that we make the right decision.
My hon. Friend's intervention was timely, because there is a continuing question over the financial consequences of a decision either to proceed or not to proceed with the plant. BNFL has told us of the projected earnings of the plant—a profit of £500 million over 10 years, with direct employment for 1,200 people and, perhaps, 3,000 in total. Those are not to be dismissed lightly. However, the decommissioning costs must be borne in mind. We know from the National Audit Office report that some of the estimates of decommissioning costs within the nuclear industry are open to some challenge, to say the least. If the decommissioning costs for THORP are even 60 per cent. greater than currently envisaged, that would entirely wipe out the projected profit from the operation.
In addition to the decommissioning issue, a mystery surrounds the exact content of the contracts for the reprocessing of spent fuel from abroad. We are told that there are severe penalties for cancellation by either side, but we cannot know whether that is right, because none of us has seen the contracts. At the very least, the proposal that the contracts should be shown to the Comptroller and Auditor General should be taken up because it is impossible for the public to make a judgment about the penalties that might be imposed. Surely greater transparency about the contracts would assist the public to make that judgment. Surely also, the Touche Ross report on the overall economic prospects for THORP should be published so that everyone can make his own assessment rather than leaving it to the managers of BNFL to tell us.
We should also know the outcome of the dispute reported in The Guardian this morning between the nuclear generators and BNFL over who should be laible for any unforeseen additional costs that might arise and that are no longer underwritten by the Government. We must establish clearly, in the public doman, some of the important issues about the likely financial future of the plant. As I said, once THORP opens, its entire decommissioning costs will be incurred. We must be as reasonably certain as possible about what that cost will be and what benefit will be derived in return.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have listened with interest to my hon. Friend's speech, and I agree with much of what he says. I understand that if the uranium processors were opened up at THORP, which would take the first two or three months, the decommissioning costs would be only £250,000 up to a certain point in the development process. The company has offered to pay the bill. If that is the case, my hon. Friend may want to temper his remarks in that light.

Mr. Smith: I am somewhat puzzled by the figure given by my hon. Friend. The decommissioning cost that he has given sounds rather small for any portion of such a plant of any size. However, I suspect that, if that were to happen, we would have another case of the tail wagging the dog in three, six or 12 months. We would be told that, because things had started, they might as well continue. It is important that we get the decision right at the outset.
A range of unanswered questions have arisen about the emissions and discharges from the plant, the nature of the waste stream and the waste management consequences of alternative options, the future decommissioning costs and the content of the spent fuel contracts, and the employment implications of any decision that is taken. The RWMAC report has been published this afternoon and needs careful analysis. The Touche Ross report should also be published. A proper environmental impact assessment should take place. It would be foolish to leap to a conclusion either way before the issues are properly and openly determined.
The Government keep telling us how committed they are to freedom of environmental information, the precautionary principle and environmental impact assessments. None of those is evidenced in their amendment. They say that they are launching a new—if truncated—consultation process, yet their amendment shows that they have already made up their mind. Our environment deserves better.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Listening to this afternoon's debate, my mind has gone back to the debates in March and May of 1978 referred to by other hon. Members. The debates followed the Parker inquiry, which itself lasted 100 days.
I remember taking part in the first of those debates. The THORP project was created as a result of the two debates. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who has been in the Chamber for a good deal of the debate and, of course, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) led for the Government in those debates. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is no longer in the Chamber, because his speech during the debate was one of the most


courageous and compelling that I have heard in the House in 28 years. It is a speech for which he deserved the greatest credit at the time.
As has been said in the debate, things have moved on since those 1978 debates. The plant is complete. The staff are trained and ready. The material for reprocessing is in the ponds of the site waiting for the gate to go up and for the containers to be moved into the reprocessing part of the plant. I was taken through the plant four weeks ago. I went into the chamber where the separation of uranium, plutonium and other materials will take place. It may be only a few weeks or months before that chamber is finally sealed up.
I represent a Cumbria constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) represented Workington in 1978. He also spoke during the two debates. On that occasion, all the Cumbrian Members of Parliament from all parties joined together to vote in favour of the plant going ahead. It is a vital project for Cumbria.

Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the importance of employment. Is not it a fact that, if BNFL does not get the go-ahead in the near future, it will have to lay off valuable and trained staff? If the dry storage option is taken, it will mean another public inquiry, a delay of several years and even more people will be laid off. We must go ahead with the project immediately.

Mr. Jopling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course the project is important for Cumbria, because it provides 2,000 jobs in that part of the county. My hon. Friend is right and BNFL has told me that if the project does not get the green light soon, some jobs will have to go. Some have gone already because of the delay. The House should be aware of that. The project is important to Cumbria. The investment already amounts to £1·85 billion. It is worth noting that a further £900 million has been invested by BNFL for additional plant and environmental protection infrastructure. It is important to realise how massive the investment has been.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The project is of extreme importance also to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and to rne. A previous Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and I were at the original inquiry and have supported the project ever since.

Mr. Jopling: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's support, and I remember that she joined me and others in that debate in May 1978 to support the project.
As has been said, the project has been profitable for the United Kingdom. I am told by BNFL that, in the worst case, the project's profits will amount to £500 million in the first 10 years of operation. The Touche Ross report, I understand, says that the economic benefit to the United Kingdom will be about £900 million. It is also important for Cumbria, as I have said. The delays and the possibility that the project will not start up at all, to which opponents of the project referred, are also important. The massive cost of the delay of £2 million a week is a serious matter. If, by any chance, the project did not start up, there could be compensation of £5 billion. The economic case is overwhelming.
The number of my constituents who work at Sellafield is not enormous, so I am conscious principally of the

environmental matters. Those are paramount. I have always said that however powerful the economic case, which I have just stated, it must be set aside if the safety elements of the plant are not entirely satisfactory.
I remind the House that I refused to vote in the March 1978 debate. I said that I could not agree to the opening of the THORP project until the two Secretaries of State had explained the safety provisions. They eventually did so, in the second debate in May 1978. Given the undertakings that they gave, I added my support to THORP going ahead.
It is worth noting that, since 1978, the emissions from Sellafield have been dramatically reduced. If the then Secretary of State had told the House that, by the mid-1990s, the emissions into the sea from Sellafield would be about one hundredth of what they were at their height in the 1970s, no one in the House would have believed him. He would have been laughed at.
But the emissions have been reduced by that amount. I have been given some graphs which demonstrate on a yearly basis the extraordinary reduction of emissions into the sea to one hundredth of what they were. It has been the most remarkable success story. It is a pity that no one has referred to that so far in the debate.

Mr. McGrady: I note the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the reduction in emissions and in the pollution of the Irish sea over the years. But he must admit that the early emissions were way above the safety standards which had been set and entirely unacceptable in terms of modern science. We also know that, apart from the revealed pollution, pollution of the Irish sea has taken place which has not yet been revealed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that a quarter of a tonne of pure plutonium was dumped into the Irish sea?
The right hon. Gentleman will be more familiar with the debate in 1978 than I am. I understand that one of the findings of the Parker inquiry was that the necessary cleansing equipment should be installed for the removal of krypton 85. That is not being done, and krypton 85 will be released into the atmosphere, with climatic and other consequences which the right hon. Gentleman has not even mentioned.

Mr. Jopling: Now that the hon. Gentleman has made the speech that he obviously intended to make, I shall proceed with mine. I shall refer to the krypton element in a few moments.
As I drove to London last night, I played again the two-hour debate on THORP which Radio Cumbria broadcast some time ago. The debate was held in Whitehaven. Listening to it, I was struck by the local support for THORP in west Cumbria. I was especially struck by one panellist, a local trade union leader, who made the point that the work force, who had wives and families living in the area, would hardly give their support—it is full hearted support—to THORP if they felt that the plant was in any way unsafe.
I am not surprised that there is such overwhelming support for the project among the work force when I read the statistics. In a statement, BNFL said:
the individual BNFL worker who received the highest radiation dose in 1992 will receive less than the residents of some 25,000 homes in Devon and Cornwall would receive from natural background.
That is a significant statement which puts the whole debate in its proper perspective.


I understand why some of those who are passionately opposed to anything that has a nuclear tag—we heard from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—use every opportunity they can dredge up to try to stop the project going ahead. They opposed the project in the Parker inquiry. They were unable to convince either the judge or his expert assessors. They have opposed every step which has been taken. Now they are using the final argument, that they want another inquiry.
I think that it was a trade union leader who made the comment that, if a second inquiry was obtained, one could be sure that, once it was over, people would find reasons for a third. We are familiar with those tactics. If people do not like something, they ask for an inquiry and create delays.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The earlier inquiry was held in 1978, when we were preoccupied with world oil supplies and oil prices, and when we were in the middle of a world energy crisis. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by 1993, 15 years on, environmental arguments are much stronger, the energy situation is different and, most significantly, the demand for plutonium that was envisaged as significant has not materialised?

Mr. Jopling: We have not heard much in the debate about the pollution effect of coal-fired electricity generation. If the hon. Gentleman reads about the possibilities of mixed oxide fuels, or MOX, projects he will realise that there is a possibility of using the material. There is already an order from Switzerland for this type of fuel.
Opponents of THORP keep talking about dry storage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West asked me a question about it. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey understandably made it his business to refuse to answer the second question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). My hon. Friend asked whether the hon. Gentleman realised that dry storage was purely a short-term, transitional solution, which leaves the major problem of what to do with the material at the end of the day.
If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey believes that dry storage is the option to take, will the Liberal party and all his friends who are opposed to THORP agree to it without a public inquiry or any further delays? We know perfectly well that it is simply a plot, and that they will oppose dry storage just as strongly as they have opposed everything else.

Mr. James Wallace: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jopling: No. I must get on, because the debate is due to end shortly.
The problem of krypton was another favourite worry which was spread around. People said, "Ah, but what about the krypton? This is the serious matter." At the beginning, I was anxious about the krypton factor. However, when I inquired into it, I was astonished to be told that the radiation from krypton emissions in the area in a year for the worst affected person was equivalent to eating a quarter-pound bag of brazil nuts, or four seconds

of sunbathing in the United Kingdom. That demonstrates the absurdity of some of the arguments which have been put up to try to convince us that the project should not go ahead.
The amendment tabled by the Government is entirely correct. I hope that the plant can open at the earliest practicable date. But, of course, that must be subject, as the amendment says, to receipts by BNFL of such consents as are required by law.
The Government have decided that there will be a delay, and we must use it to make sure that the plant is entirely safe. That decision reflects great credit on the Government, even though it causes much irritation to many people. They should be given credit for making doubly certain that the plant is safe. Once that has been done, I hope that the project will continue, and that it will produce significant wealth and employment for this nation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: One unfortunate aspect of this debate is that the Liberal Democrats have cast themselves as the villains of the piece, whereas the Government, because they have dithered and delayed, are the real villains.
Before I produce evidence of that, I repeat my earlier remark: that the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, is an independent officer of the House of Commons. Before this debate ends, the Liberal Democrats—and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—should be prepared to state that, if Sir John Bourn says that his interpretation of the contracts is the same as that of British Nuclear Fuels, they will accept it.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The preferable option is that we should see both the contracts and reports such as that produced by Touche Ross. If such a conclusion were reached by someone who is an independent officer of the House, that would be a satisfactory outcome, and acceptable but all the documents must be submitted, and that independent officer would have to make a full report.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman concedes that, because environmental groups have repeatedly used the same line as the Liberal Democrats—which is that, without seeing the contracts, British Nuclear Fuels cannot be trusted. I hope that that argument is settled and if Mr. Lowry is listening, I hope that he will also take note of what is said by the Liberal Democrats in the House tonight.

Mr. Page: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office produce a report, it must be agreed by the Department under scrutiny and by the National Audit Office, so that there is no dissension when it comes before the PAC? Therefore, the agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred is in place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, I can go that far. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I spent 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee, and we all know what happens in private session. A slight difficulty arises, but it is an agreed report.
In the first two to three months of THORP's life, there will be a process entitled "the commissioning of uranium".
Thereafter, the plant could be decontaminated at a cost of £250,000 to British Nuclear Fuels, which it has offered to pay. I fail to understand why that process cannot begin now. If the plant were to be commissioned at a later stage, a number of months would be saved.
I want to make it clear that I am pro-nuclear and pro-THORP, and have lived in Cumbria most of my life. I was in west Cumbria at the time of the 1957 fire. I am the son of an engineer who worked in the nuclear industry, but regard myself as a constructive critic of the industry.
I supported Greenpeace during the 1973 demonstration over the Sellafield pipeline and subscribed to its legal costs—and was criticised locally for that action. I did so in order that, one day, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) would be able to say in the House exactly that which he did say. The hundredth multiplier in terms of reductions and discharges of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke arises in part as a result of that incident. I was proud to have been at the forefront of supporting environmental groups.
I have been in a number of public and private scraps with British Nuclear Fuels over the years, primarily in respect of employment, discharges, public relations, waste management and—most recently—krypton emissions. I have argued ad nauseam with the company against its legal actions against environmental groups, which I believe are nonsense. I hold the view that it should never bring such legal actions.
On this occasion, however, the industry has a substantial case and should be supported. Although BNFL is located in Copeland, it is the largest employer of my constituents. It currently has 13,500 people on site, including contract staff. THORP will provide 2,100 permanent jobs in west Cumbria. If it failed to open, that would be an unmitigated disaster for my constituency. The impact would be five times that of the imminent job losses at Rosyth, and the local economy would be devastated.
When a Labour Government proposed and planned the THORP project in the late 1970s, much of the debate centred on employment in the west of the county. Last July, we were told that a timetable had been agreed to allow THORP to begin operations at the beginning of this year. That date was never met. Seven months later, the Department of the Environment is demanding further consultation.
A parliamentary reply from the Secretary of State for the Environment made available today, which clears the air as far as I am concerned, states:
the Inspectorate have concluded that no points of substance have been raised that should cause them to reconsider the terms of the draft authorisations, save for some amendments/corrections. In their judgment, the provisions of the draft authorisations will effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain, and the environment generally.
What more could we want? How much more consultation must there be before the project goes on stream?
All the matters raised today were dealt with in the Parker inquiry and in the course of hundreds—perhaps thousands—of' parliamentary questions and repeated interventions during numerous energy debates on all aspects of the industry over the past 13 years.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have every respect for my hon. Friend's professional background and integrity, but in the Parker inquiry and in the 1978 debates, the main reason given for commissioning THORP was to isolate plutonium for the new generation of fast breeder reactors. That was

the energy scenario presented for the 21st century. Now that that no longer holds true, there is no valid energy reason for proceeding with THORP.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that there is a large order book. It is not I who am saying that there is a demand. The utilities of Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Canada and Italy all tell us that there is a market for the product. It seems that the statements made at the Parker inquiry in 1978 are very relevant, and led to the creation of a substantial market.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does not the tendency on the part of those countries to buy British tell the hon. Gentleman something about the product and about their anxiety to get it out of their countries?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting point. I went to a meeting the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). A Japanese lady was at that meeting. The Japanese are not prone to giving us business when they can turn out products themselves.
I am told that the Americans, by treaty, prevented the Japanese from developing certain nuclear technologies and that, if it had not been for the existence of that treaty, we should not have the THORP plant in West Cumbria today. I am grateful to the Americans for that. It adds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It may be that the Japanese wanted the business, but the existence of the treaty prevented them from getting it.
The truth is that a strong and articulate lobby of opponents of nuclear power wants to phase out the nuclear industry. It wants THORP stopped at all costs. The Government appear to be conceding some of their arguments, with the result that BNFL is now losing £2.4 million a week in lost profits. The Government's amendment is extremely ambiguous. Although it expresses support for THORP, it fails to reveal the Government's dithering over approval. I believe that there has been dithering and a lack of decision-taking in Government Departments.
I understand that Mr. Guinness is here to observe our proceedings, but he would have done well to come to politicians long before he did so. I understand that there is much criticism in the industry that we were not approached far earlier, so that representations could be made to us about ensuring that the right decisions were taken at the right time, with a final decision being taken earlier than now appears to be likely.
Why should the credibility of British industry be put at stake? We have signed a number of binding contracts. We did so having debated all the issues that are now being questioned. The £9 billion BNFL order book comprises eight overseas companies, many of which are now expressing open concern about what is happening. Why? Because we built the plant with their money. They paid for that plant. Therefore, they want it to be commissioned.
The largest Swiss electricity utility, NOK—a BNFL customer—has recently stated:
NOK has invested in this plant more than £90 million without taking into account the accrued interest on construction. With deep sorrow we noticed articles in the British Press … stating that the start-up of THORP could be further delayed up to one year. Such a development would


badly hurt our business interests but (also) our confidence (which, we put up to now into the performance and excellency of British Industry, especially BNFL.
NOK is not alone. Hon. Members will have seen the advertisement in the national press last Wednesday by the 10 Japanese electricity companies, emphasising their support for the plant. German customers, too, have expressed concern. One company, GKN, worriedly stated only recently:
We have made a big contribution to that facility. We assumed, that after the public inquiry years ago, there will not be basic doubts on THORP's operation.
The reality is that we are letting down our customers with this delay. So why the dithering? Why do we need this further process of consultation? All these issues have surely been dealt with in recent years. Why can we not have the decision now and let BNFL take its chance on judicial review, in the event of Greepeace bringing the case it has talked about?
These overseas customers have provided up-front payments to finance the large majority of the THORP construction costs of £1·85 billion, 90 per cent. of which was spent with British industry. I wonder how many jobs in the constituencies of hon. Members in all parts of the House were created as a result of that up-front payment by foreign contractors?

Mr. Ian Bruce: Was the hon. Gentleman in the House when the Government announced that they were not going to go ahead with the fast breeder reactor programme? Does he know how many Liberal Democrats protested, because of job losses in their constituencies?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not want to go into the question whether the Liberal Democrats protested on that occasion, but we can be sure that jobs in every constituency have been affected by the THORP project. I protested about the rundown of the fast breeder reactor programme. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) protested about it at that time, I believe.
I have already said that 90 per cent. of all this money was spent with British industry. All in all, it has brought £1·6 billion-worth of inward investment to west Cumbria. It represents the biggest inward investment in our history. We shall never again experience anything like it.
These contracts, which were negotiated with the customers, are based upon both cost-plus and fixed-price terms, with about 40 per cent. accounting for the latter. On that specific point, can the Minister confirm that, irrespective of arguments over price, reported in The Guardian this morning, the business for core tonnage for reprocessing at THORP from Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear is absolutely secure? Is it legally watertight?
The real issue is not that the nuclear giants are on a collision course but that the Government have withdrawn their pledge to underwrite risks attached to future legislation. It may be that the prospect of future privatisation of parts of the industry features greatly in the minds of Ministers and civil servants when decisions are taken on such matters, particularly when it comes to decommissioning costs.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend mentioned that Japan does not do its own reprocessing because the world did not trust

Japan, because of its record, at the time. Does he not think that events have moved on, and that the greatest threat in the world is the proliferation of materials for making nuclear weapons? If THORP goes ahead, there will be two choices: either this country will become the nuclear dustbin of the world or plutonium will proliferate throughout dozens of countries, many of which are unstable. As plutonium lasts for ever, will it not enormously increase the danger of nuclear proliferation?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall refer to that point at the end of my speech. We must certainly address the proliferation argument. As for what my hon. Friend says about waste material, he will have heard earlier in the debate the argument about material substitution, which I think dealt with his point.
Questions have been raised about the soundness of the contracts. I am told that several joint opinions of leading counsel have been received by BNFL, confirming that they are
commercially effective and binding on the parties.
I am equally sure that, if THORP did not go ahead, all the customers, especially those with fixed-price contracts, would seek compensation. That would cost the taxpayer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, as much as £5 billion. Furthermore, it would cost BNFL £1 billion in lost profits over the next 10 years. So I say again: why the dithering by the Government?
But the buck does not stop there. If THORP does not open, the cost of Magnox reprocessing will increase, as it faces the full cost burden of otherwise shared waste management facilities. Who will be forced to pay for that? Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear. However, at the end of the day, the customer, the householder, will pay for it in higher electricity prices. That has to be avoided at all costs.
I want to say a few words about safety and proliferation. The public should never measure the industry's safety record on the basis of incidents at Sellafield. They are invariably in the old plant. When the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) goes to Sellafield, he should tell the management, if they want to take him round the new plant, that he wants first to go round the old plant. I understand that management do not always take people round the old plant.
It is only when one sees the old plant and compares it with the new one that one appreciates the developments in nuclear technology over the years. That is important when one is evaluating reports on television or radio, or in the media, about incidents at Sellafield.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that an episode as minute as the misplacement of a used glove counts as an incident? One reads in the newspapers that such incidents are increasing, when in reality they are less significant than a glove being lost in a hospital.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady is right. Many small incidents are reportable. However, we must not underestimate the importance of larger incidents, which, equally, are reportable.
The old plant was built in the 1950s. Subsequent plants have a far higher safety record, as their technology is invariably state of the art. Discharges into the sea following the Greenpeace incident in 1983 are now less


than one hundred of what they were 10 years ago. If we are to evaluate the effect of radiation doses on the population, we must compare them with naturally occurring background radiation.
Although the report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment mentions the possibility of an increased risk to the general public under the proposed authorisation in the area of the plant, such levels account for only 10 per cent. of natural background radiation. Put simply, THORP increases exposure by 25 microSieverts per person a year. That must be compared with 4,300 microSieverts in Ireland, 7,500 microSieverts in Cornwall and 2,200 microSieverts in west Cumbria.
I have, however, one reservation about discharges, and it concerns krypton, about which I have had endless correspondence and conversations with the company. I have corresponded with the Japanese authorities to establish whether the krypton removal plant attached to the Tokaimura pilot reprocessing plant should be fitted to THORP.
We are now told that the Japanese do not intend to fit such technology to their new fully fledged reprocessing plant at Rokashamura, which in effect will be the same as THORP when it is opened in 10 years' time. In my view, further work is needed on krypton, particularly as the THORP facility is designed for add-on krypton removal technology.
Proliferation is an issue, and we have to address it. The Minister should tell us today whether the Americans are exerting any pressure on the Government about the potential for proliferation arising from THORP. If the answer is yes, instead of questioning the project, surely the solution is to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency and its enforcement powers.
One must not stop the process or shut the plant, but rather deal with the problem of shipping the product around the world and with its end use. If I recall correctly, in the 1980s. when many Labour Members were unilateralists, we argued for the enforcement of its powers and for it to do its job successfully and properly.
Many of my constituents are worried about this debate and about the future of THORP. We believe that, after 15 years, the talking must stop and the plant should be allowed to open. We cannot go on in an atmosphere of concern such as currently exists in west Cumbria.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I wish, first, to declare an interest as a non-executive director of Nuclear and General Engineering Ltd. and of Cunnington and Cooper Ltd., which both manufacture for BNFL on a considerable scale. I was previously a director of a company that manufactured for coal-fired power stations and of an oil company, so I have wide experience of energy, not merely a narrow view.
The United Kingdom has no equal in orchestrating delay—it really takes the biscuit. I am talking about Ministers, civil servants. inspectorates and local planning officers. I could go on and on. Who rubs their hands? It is the French across the channel. Why? Because they are our main competitors. They have nuclear power and nuclear processing in a big way. If we do not get cracking on

THORP, we will export not only jobs from Cumbria but many jobs throughout the United Kingdom that depend on contracts for THORP going ahead very shortly.
We are affecting thousands of people. We are doing a great disservice to our engineers, scientists and inventors, who have made us leaders in nuclear processing. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say, "It is a question of storage or reprocessing." It is not; it is a question of disposal and reprocessing, which allows management to decide whether some material is stored in dry storage. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen have their story wrong and they are not thinking clearly enough. Management wants the choice.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made a very good speech. However, he blamed John Guinness, who I believe is blameless because he was not chairman when many of these things were put in motion. Since becoming chairman, he has been quick to talk to hon. Members who have taken an interest in nuclear energy and to invite them to Sellafield to see things for themselves.
I referred to the United Kindom's orchestrating of delays, of which the Sizewell inquiry was a good example. We are simply handing contracts to our competitors. We have the designers, scientists and the skills. For goodness sake, let us capitalise on that and win trade for the United Kingdom.
The dangers were mentioned. People who live in Cornwall are subject to 7,500 microSieverts of radiation a year. People who live in Cumbria will be pleased to hear that they are subject to only 2,200 microSieverts a year. People who live close to the plant might be subject to an additional 53 microSieverts, but that equates to only the radiation level experienced on an aircraft trip to Tenerife and back. The radiation level for the whole of Cumbria equates to that experienced on an aircraft trip to Singapore and back.
Why are we talking about safety? If we are worried about safety, why let the French take the lead? They are only 20 miles across the water. If there is a disaster in France, we will suffer. It is absolutely stupid.
I have said all that I want to say in only a few minutes. I wish that other hon. Members would be as brief, because the speeches and stupid interventions that we have heard will serve only to hand contracts to the French. If hon. Members had something to say, why did not they stand up and make a speech? Why did they keep intervening? I reckon that I have said it all in two minutes.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I thank the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for initiating the debate.
The key decisions about THORP were taken in 1978, since when there has not been a parliamentary debate on the subject. In those 15 years, circumstances have changed substantially. In the 1970s, oil prices went through the roof and our future oil supplies were uncertain. There was a world energy problem, because we did not know how long our oil and gas resources would last. There was, therefore, a projected energy gap. The answer with which we were presented in the 1970s was nuclear energy—advanced gas-cooled reactors, pressurised water reactors and, in the long term, fast breeder reactors.
The initial justification for THORP was that we would need plutonium to solve the energy problem, and that fast breeder reactors would be the reactors of the 21st century.
Fifteen years later, it is a completely different ball game. There is no energy problem. Oil and gas resources are finite, but we are thinking in terms of 50 years and more. Oil prices are no longer the problem that they were in the 1970s. There is a glut of coal on the world market, and it is British. The market for nuclear energy has collapsed. Orders for reactors have been cancelled, and, because of the transparent economics, we now know that nuclear electricity means a £1 billion a year levy on electricity prices. There is no demand for plutonium, although there is an embarrassment of plutonium in Europe, Russia and the United States.
The Government cancelled the British fast breeder reactor programme two or three years ago. In Europe, all work on fast breeder reactors is coming to a halt, including that on the Super Phenix in France. Only Japan is proceeding with a fast breeder reactor, but, having studied nuclear matters for the past 20 years, I can safely predict that within 10 years, or perhaps even five, Japan will also scrap that work.
What is the justification for THORP? Once we had scrapped the fast breeder reactor, there was no need for it. The only justification is the £9 billion of orders for reprocessing, which were negotiated 10 years ago. We now realise that reprocessing is quite unnecessary because dry storage is a realistic, viable and far cheaper option.
The Minister said that everyone who is anti-THORP is anti-nuclear, which is generally the case. In economic terms, it would be cheaper for Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear if THORP were cancelled and if they switched to dry storage, which is their preferred option. Germany is now considering removing the reprocessing requirement from its electricity utilities so the German orders can be re-negotiated; perhaps Germany would be glad if THORP were cancelled. The £5 billion-worth of Japanese orders is not a consolation prize. I am sure that the cancellation fee would be only a small fraction of that. The Japanese do not need the plutonium because there is an embarrassment of plutonium on the world market.
Why should we proceed with THORP? We do not need the uranium, which is much cheaper on the world market. We do not need the plutonium, because there is no market for it, and the radioactive waste produced is the same as that in the dry store facilities.
The future of THORP should be the subject of a full and open public inquiry so that all aspects can be considered. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said in his excellent speech, a public inquiry need take no more than 100 days; the decision could still be taken by the end of the year. I am sure that the result of a public inquiry would be completely different from that in 1978. The THORP project should be scrapped. It is cheaper to scrap it than to proceed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: For all the passion and certainty that have accompanied so many of the speeches, perhaps the most revealing was the passage in the Minister's speech when he was at great pains—no doubt with his eye on the Strand and the High Court—to

make it perfectly clear that certain statutory responsibilities devolve on the two Secretaries of State and that, however much passion and certainty we may display in the Chamber, to a large extent the decisions may fall to be taken under the discretion that legislation affords to them.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was one of the most significant contributions to the debate. He expressed with great eloquence his and many other people's reservations. His analysis was faultless, but I found his conclusion difficult to justify against that analysis.
He concluded that an environmental impact assessment was necessary. I have seen a few of those in my time, and the one thing we know about them is that they are all based on assumptions. If one wants to challenge the assumptions, the only way to do so is at a public inquiry. I should declare an interest in public inquiries because some of the best and, I suppose, some of the most lucrative days of my life have been spent at public inquiries.
One important issue has not yet been dealt with: public inquiries are an important vehicle for creating public confidence. They are not merely opportunities for points to be scored by either side of the argument or for cross-examination; they are an opportunity to allay the public's legitimate anxieties. Of course, if a public inquiry were to follow in this case, it would cause delay and costs would also be involved. I agree with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that jobs could be at risk.
I am not one of those who passionately oppose nuclear power, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but the issues go beyond the boundaries of Cumbria and have attracted the attention of and caused anxiety among sufficient people to justify a public inquiry.
Hon. Members should read with care the answer put on the board at 3.30 pm today. The Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that the functions incumbent on him under, for example, section 11 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 are not to be prejudiced by the terms of his answer. If one reads the Act, one finds that the form of the consultation that the Secretaries of State may yet determine may be that of a public inquiry. The Minister dare not say that there will be no public inquiry; if he did, he would be trenching on the discretion of those Secretaries of State, and I can assure him that it would be relied on in an application for judicial review in the High Court in the Strand. The consequence of the passion and commitment that have been displayed this evening may yet be a public inquiry. If there were to be an inquiry, I do not believe that it would be against the public interest.
I understand those who support nuclear power with great passion and enthusiasm. I also understand hon. Members who are anxious to support those who work in the industry, especially their constituents. However, before we proceed, and in view of the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the Parker inquiry, is it not right to pause and reconsider?
I do not make that suggestion on an insubstantial basis. On the subject of substitution, the document produced by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee raises an important matter that has not yet been resolved. How is it to be resolved to the public's satisfaction other than through a public inquiry? I wanted to say a little more about the risks of nuclear proliferation, but time prevents me from doing so.
One consequence of THORP would be the production of more plutonium. To convert it to weapons grade material takes great skill and is no mean feat. The existence of additional plutonium and the risk of its potential diversion for illicit purposes should cause us great concern. I do not think that the United Kingdom is at risk of a nuclear attack from countries that were formerly members of the Warsaw pact or the Soviet Union, but the United Kingdom's interests will certainly be prejudiced, or at risk, if there is a proliferation of countries with nuclear weapons. That in itself should make us pause and think before we proceed with the programme.

Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
We have had a constructive debate in which a wide variety of issues have been aired. Of course, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take careful note of the points that have been made. They must exercise their functions in relation to the Sellafield discharge authorisation as that is a matter for them.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) urged an environmental impact statement on the House. He was answered admirably by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). They argued against such a statement very persuasively.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) again urged us to have a full public inquiry. He joins Greenpeace in that request. However, unlike Greenpeace, he was not honest about what he wanted. Greenpeace has stated quite specifically that it wants a public inquiry because that would delay the operation of THORP by a year or 18 months. Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman come clean with the House and say that that was his motivation?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and the hon. Member for Workington spoke well for Cumbria and made clear the widespread support for THORP. As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) spoke clearly, directly and to the point.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) revealed himself once more to be a fully paid up member of the "We know it all, but we are opponents to nuclear power and we will use every mechanism we can" brigade, as that is what, in effect, he said in his short intervention.
I wish finally to consider the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. They state in their motion that there is a "hardening of international opposition". There is no evidence of that and customers have supported the plant yet again. The motion states:
there are … strong economic, environmental and proliferation reasons
against the plant. However, the conclusions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, revealed in today's parliamentary answer, give the lie to that.
The Liberal Democrats also state in the motion that
all relevant circumstances have … changed".
Yes, relevant circumstances have changed: THORP has been constructed; people have been recruited for the plant, contracts have been signed and people are trained and ready to work. The Liberal Democrats should pay attention to that.
The motion states that alternative processes are available. However, customers are not choosing those alternative processes. The motion calls for "full disclosure" of contracts and well it might. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth made clear, what would that do? It would help the French and BNFL's international competitors.
The motion also calls for "economic justification" for the plant. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has done in his announcement today. The motion calls for opportunity for "public comment" and that, too, has been provided in the parliamentary answer today.
The points made by the Liberal Democrats have been answered. I call on the House to vote for the Government amendment to the motion.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 157.

Division No. 308]
[7.22 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bayley, Hugh
Llwyd, Elfyn


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bennett, Andrew F.
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Mahon, Alice


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Mullin, Chris


Cann, Jamie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Rendel, David


Cohen, Harry
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Dafis, Cynog
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Denham, John
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wareing, Robert N


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Galloway, George
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Harvey, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Johnston, Sir Russell
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. James Wallace.


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clappison, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Bates, Michael
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowis, John
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Brandreth, Gyles
Dalyell, Tarn


Brazier, Julian
Day, Stephen


Bright, Graham
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Devlin, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James






Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Legg, Barry


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Milligan, Stephen


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hutton, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Key, Robert
Spink, Dr Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Stephen, Michael





Stern, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Willerts, David


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Trend, Michael



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Waller, Gary



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the management and workforce of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the completion of its high technology thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Sellafield; welcomes the 3,000 jobs, mainly in the North West, which the plant supports; recognises that around 90 per cent. of its £1,850 million capital cost was spent with British industry; notes that the plant is needed to fulfil the customers' requirements for reprocessing, represented by contracts already won worth £9 billion; recalls that it is a major example of international inward investment which the chairmen of the ten Japanese nuclear power generators strongly endorsed last week; expresses confidence in the non-proliferation arrangements that underlie the plant's work for all the overseas customers; and, subject to receipt by BNFL of such consents as are required by law, supports the commissioning of the plant at the earliest practicable date.

Regional Development (Wales)

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the reduction in resources for regional development by the United Kingdom Government; notes that this is in stark contrast to the policy of the European Community, which actively promotes regional development in order to improve the infrastructure and economies of peripheral nations and regions; and calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that the whole of Wales benefits from a wide range of instruments for regional development, including assisted area status.
The timing of this debate is particularly opportune, for several reasons. We have a new Secretary of State for Wales—a Secretary of State who inevitably knows little about Wales. There is nothing unusual about that—with the Tories, of course, it is par for the course. The House will know perfectly well Plaid Cymru's remedy for that chronic situation. I shall return to that point later.
It is equally significant, perhaps, that Wales knows little about the new Secretary of State. True, his reputation has come before him—a Thatcherite, as dry as a bone, a non-interventionist free marketeer, so it is said, thus inevitably one who is less than enthusiastic, perhaps highly sceptical, about what is termed regional development policy. However, that might be a completely false impression. Among other matters, the debate provides an opportunity to begin to find out what creature the Secretary of State is. I use the word "creature" in its original and best meaning—a person created. If he wishes, this is an opportunity for him to dispel the image of him that I have just presented.
I make it clear at the outset that, when members of my party speak of regional development policy, we do not mean developing Wales as a region; we mean the development of the regions of Wales. Wales is not a region; Wales is a nation. We in Plaid Cymru say that the prime reason why almost the whole of Wales is in such need of regional development policy is that we in Wales have not taken our nationality sufficiently seriously. We have failed to bring into being the institutions, in particular a properly constituted Government accountable to a democratic Parliament, that would enable the people collectively to take Wales's future into their own hands. That is an interpretation that more and more people in Wales are beginning to accept, and with more and more conviction.
One of the factors that have brought about that evolution of opinion over recent years has been the absurdity and the incongruousness—it would be comical were it not so infuriating—of the fact that three successive Secretaries of State for Wales have been English, representatives of English constituencies and members of a Government pursuing policies that are quite unacceptable to the people of Wales.
We in Plaid Cymru and other hon. Members want national development in Wales, and that entails the economic development of Wales's regions in order to provide prosperity for our people, the material underpinning of our communities with their varied Welsh cultures, opportunities for fulfilment within Wales for our young people, and the encouragement of confidence and self-reliance among the people of Wales. The underlying chronic debilitating problem of Wales has been the

continued out-migration of our young people over a long period—a continuous brain drain from Wales. Building a national future for Wales must entail tackling that underlying historic problem.
Of course, the Conservative Government have made some concessions to Welsh distinctiveness, lest, I suppose, the natives become restless. Two of the three previous viceroys have become wets, as they are called. They have made much use of Wales as a laboratory to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of relatively—I emphasise the word "relatively"—interventionist economic strategies. We have been told that that is typical of Conservative administration in Wales recently. It remains to be seen whether the Secretary of State will belie his reputation or prove himself to be of the same ilk as the previous two, or perhaps three, Secretaries of State.
That relative interventionism, as we might call it, has meant that Wales has endured a reduction in Government expenditure on regional and financial assistance of 62 per cent., compared with 79 per cent. for Great Britain as a whole. If that sounds a bit like damning with faint praise, as Pope would have it, that is exactly what it was meant to be. Funds from the Exchequer for the Welsh Development Agency stood at £87 million in 1991–92, compared with £112 million in 1979–80, at constant prices.
Notwithstanding the reduction in funding, the WDA is a powerful agency. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State has to say about its future. It has been suggested that the WDA has trumpeted its own success to such a degree as to imperil its future by, first, arousing envy among the English regions and, secondly, causing some people to believe that its survival is no longer necessary. The WDA is a great success story of the Welsh economy.
That weakness—that peccadillo—of the WDA is less true of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That board has done important work in the rural areas of mid-Wales and is now targeting—as it should—the western seaboard, which includes a great deal of my constituency. That work must continue. We must ensure that the commitment to those areas in Wales is maintained.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales, perhaps he will recognise that the way in which those organisations have operated recently has led to there being much more in terms of a partnership between private business and the agencies. That is different from the situation that existed at the inception of the WDA. Does he think that that shows that the agencies have a glowing future, in line with the whole approach of Government policy in terms of a partnership between the Government and private business?

Mr. Dafis: I have no objection at all to the principle of a partnership between public agencies such as the WDA and the private sector. Long may such a partnership continue and develop. However, it is not the same as always tying the funds that public agencies should he putting into certain developments to the availability of private moneys in connection with them. Be that as it may—a partnership of that sort must be welcomed.
It is worth considering what exactly has been achieved by regional policy in Wales, including the activities of the


WDA over the past decade. I shall leave aside for a moment the pitiful inadequacy of the response in the 1960s and the 1970s—I make no apology for that period—to the massive structural change that the Welsh economy was undergoing. There were serious deficiencies at that time.
There were successes in the 1980s, but they were partial at best. That is not to whinge—it is simply to face the truth. It is important that we do not allow any propagandist self-deception to prevent us from looking the facts straight in the face and examining the current needs of the Welsh economy.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment that the improvements have been partial. Does he agree that, if the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales were widened somewhat so that it could take a more active part in both agriculture and tourism, its success might be rather more holistic?

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention. An holistic approach is certainly what we need in rural Wales, as elsewhere. Clearly, industrial development needs to be considered, together with the state of the agricultural industry. I go further to say that such developments need to be considered in relation to cultural issues and cultural development. Recently, the DBRW has become more sensitive to such considerations, and I am glad to see that sort of development.
In what way has the achievement been partial? Inward investment has been largely limited to south-east and north-east Wales. I have the figures for the period 1983–88, but I do not think that they would be much different today. At that time, 84 per cent. of inward investment went to the three Glamorgans and Gwent alone. With Clwyd, it added up to 93·9 per cent. Effectively, inward investment has been limited in Gwynedd and it has hardly touched Dyfed and Powys. I do not think that things have changed since then.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The United Kingdom as a whole has been lucky enough to attract nearly 30 per cent. of the total amount of inward investment in the European Community. The vast majority of it goes either to Scotland, where it is pooled by the Scottish Development Agency, or to the Welsh Development Agency. Meanwhile, the north of England, which must trundle along with the Northern Development Company, has been successful, but not to anything like the same degree as the WDA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms Lait) is here to plead for the sort of assistance that the hon. Gentleman is taking much too readily for granted in southern and northern Wales. Incidentally, the people living in those two parts of Wales need regional assistance.

Mr. Dafis: I am here tonight unashamedly to plead the cause of Wales. That is certainly my priority. In the creaking United Kingdom framework, it is only right and proper that the national nature of Wales and Scotland should be recognised by different agencies. I am not in the business of bandying figures about or making comparisons of that sort—I am simply examining what has been achieved in terms of regional policy in Wales as a result of the activities of the WDA. I am simply saying that inward

investment has touched only relatively confined parts of Wales. Even in Glamorgan and Gwent, its effect has been strictly limited in territorial terms.
The south Wales valleys are the cradle of Welsh industrial development—[Interruption.]—with politics of various sorts. We have all read Lewis Jones and we all know about little Moscow, the great tradition of Welsh Labour politics and the rapid growth of Plaid Cymru support in the industrial valleys. I am speaking with great affection about the south Wales valleys, which are so important to the cultural make-up of Wales. Recently, unemployment in those valleys has reached the same level as that in the 1930s. Each year, 1,000 people move from those valleys. Even in south-east Wales, the effect of inward investment and industrial development has been partial. That is my point.
There is also the problem of low pay. During the 1980s, Wales fell from fourth to ninth position among the British regions for male full-time manual earnings, from fifth to 10th for non-manual males and from seventh to ninth for professional women. Activity rates—which are a key indicator of the nature and health of an economy—among males of working age are 9 per cent. below the British average. Dependency rates, reflecting in part the migration of the young, which I mentioned earlier, are high. There are deep structural deficiencies.
Meanwhile, the economy of rural Wales, and therefore of its communities—economies and communities go together—are in a truly perilous state. That is no exaggeration. In agriculture, there has been a rapid reduction in the number of holdings and in full-time employment—a process which is not yet complete, I fear. We see the centralisation of many services, out of rural areas, and out of villages and small towns. Our nuclear power stations, which are important employers, face an uncertain future. In Dyfed, the closure of military establishments is dealing a devastating blow to many areas. There are deep and serious problems in rural Wales. There is widespread cynicism in Pembrokeshire about the Welsh Office's response to the closure of defence establishments there.
The former Secretary of State, in the run-up to the 1992 general election, established a west Wales task force which was charged with drawing up a strategy for the economic revitalisation of the area. Prestigious and able consultants were appointed, and it was announced that the strategy was to be complete and ready for action by September 1992. A seriously inadequate strategy document was made available for a meeting at Gwydyr house at the end of January 1993, several months late.
The key recommendation was that the task force should be revamped and that a new project director should be appointed. That was a key appointment. It was not until 25 April this year that the WDA was told that it was to be given the job of organising the new task force. Not surprisingly, the project director is yet to be appointed. All those months of lost opportunities have been mentioned by people working in the area. It has been a disgraceful affair from start to finish. The task force is, I believe, once more under way, and I wish it well. I have been positive in my response to the existence of the task force all along and I intend to continue to be positive, despite the serious faults in the way in which the matter has been handled.
Fundamental to the recommendations about the task force was the recommendation that the Fishguard travel-to-work area should be granted full development


area status. Here we come to an important theme in tonight's debate, which is mentioned in the motion. There must be full development area status for the Fishguard area. It will 13e astonishing if that is not implemented, although such implementation should not be at the expense of the parts of Wales that currently enjoy assisted area status.
Rumour currently tells us that parts of Wales, including parts of my constituency, may lose assisted area status. That is entirely unacceptable. I hope that my remarks so far have highlighted the massive task that remain:; to be carried out in regional development policy in Wales. We need not a rundown, but a strengthening, of regional policy. There is scope for modification, for refinement and for changes in direction. There is a need to pinpoint for special attention the areas, already mentioned, that are suffering severe difficulties. I think especially of the south Wales valleys, areas in my constituency and areas in the north which need special attention.
It is accepted by the development agencies, including the DBRW, that we need greater emphasis on indigenous businesses, on the encouraging of local sourcing and on the creation of networks between businesses within areas. We need more emphasis on skills enhancement, on innovation, and on the availability of information of the highest quality to individuals, to companies and to public authorities. We need such information to be facilitated through the development of modern technology. All those themes need to be pursued more now than in the past, in a general context of strengthening regional policy and especially of maintaining assisted area status for the areas that have it now.
This is no time for downgrading, partly because that would convey entirely the wrong signal to the European Community. That point leads me to the second reason why the timing of this debate is opportune. EC structural funds are currently under review, so the months from now until the end of the year are important. It is vital that European regional development policy should be strengthened, because without a really powerful regional policy—this is perhaps the central issue—the effect of the single European market, the move towards a single European currency and monetary union will be devastating for peripheral and disadvantaged regions such as Wales.
Free trade and open markets can serve the interests of people, in the short term at least, as consumers. Open markets, open borders and free trade can also serve the interests of large, powerful organisations and conglomerates. As such, those developments have an inexorably centralising tendency, favouring areas that enjoy a competitive advantage. People are not just consumers, thank goodness; they are also workers and producers, and they are also members of communities with roots in cultures specific to particular places. Regional policy is a philosophical recognition, among other things, of that second aspect of human need—the need for people to be rooted in communities and to be infinitely more than merely consumers of goods.
The recognition of that need at European level is one reason why resources under the European structural funds were doubled between 1989 and 1993. That is why Maastricht envisages a further strengthening and development of regional policy. Wales is looking increasingly in the direction of Europe, and rightly so. Objective 2 status for regions seriously affected by industrial decline has been important in the industrial

south-east and in the north-east. I am sure that hon. Members who represent those areas will wish to elaborate on that point.
As I represent a western constituency, I refer to the crucial importance of objective 5b status for Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys. The £100 million provided for the integrated development operations programme has made possible road improvements. Regional development fund money has contributed to further education for 10,000 students in Dyfed alone. We have had the excellent Leader programme administered on the borders of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) by Antur Teifi. It is a most exciting development. I was there not long ago at the opening of the new Telemateg centre. That programme was initiated under the Leader programme, and was a consequence of the fact that the area has objective 5b status.
The European regional development fund grant of £2 million will enable Stena Sealink to effect improvements to Fishguard harbour. That will make possible a third crossing, which is a crucial development for that port and for the southern corridor linking the Republic of Ireland through south Wales to the European continent. The fund has made an even more significant contribution to the development of Holyhead, which is crucial for the development of the central corridor.
I have given just a few examples. It is small wonder that Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys seek to continue objective 5b status as essential to the development strategy. I support, as a person from the south, the wish of Aberconwy, Colwyn and Glyndwr to be included in objective 5b status. Clearly, those areas in the north belong to the same category. Currently the application for the new programme for 1994–99 is under consideration. This time it is a six-year programme. Here, time is of the essence.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I dare say that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that, five years ago, Aberconwy satisfied all the necessary criteria for objective 5b status. With the passage of time, Aberconwy has declined in economic terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that its application this year should succeed?

Mr. Dafis: That proposal, and any emphasis on it, will have my whole-hearted support. It is good that Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys are united in their support.
As I have indicated, time is of the essence in considering the application for the new programme. It is crucial that the system be in place by the end of the year so that the local authorities may make timely arrangements for co-financing—which is difficult these days, local government finance being what it is—and so that programmes may get under way promptly at the beginning of next year. The Secretary of State must ensure that progress is not held up in any way.
It seems that one area of dispute concerns the proposal in the Commission's green paper published on 16 June that 10 per cent. of total funding be given to European Community initiatives—programmes initiated by the Community itself in response to specific socio-economic situations. It is reported that the British Government want the proportion to be 7 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. In this regard, my party supports the Commission. We want to see the development of a partnership between the European Community and local authorities. Community


initiatives must be given their proper place. I should say, by the way, that I am told that such initiatives are a means of ensuring that additionality actually applies. That is, of course, of great importance to the people of Wales.
In any case, at least three of the initiatives that I want to mention are particularly relevant to Wales. First, as many hon. Members will no doubt want to emphasise, we want a commitment of support for RECHAR 2—something that is very important to former coal-mining areas. Secondly, there is Konver for areas dependent on military installations and suffering the effects of cuts in that field. That is, of course, highly relevant to Dyfed and, in particular, to Pembrokeshire, which are reeling from the effects of the closure of Trecwn and Brawdy.
Applications under the current Konver programme were to have been received by June, according to information that I received earlier this year. However, until recently local authorities were unaware of the criteria for projects, as the information had not been provided. That is very worrying. I hear that the deadline has been extended by a month, and I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that we shall not lose out. It is important that such funds be targeted at places, such as those in Wales, where defence establishments have been closed and that there be no failure by the Welsh Office to formulate and process applications.
Thirdly, there in Interreg. It is essential that the maritime border between Wales and Ireland be recognised for the purposes of this initiative. Co-operation between local authorities in Wales and local authorities in the Republic of Ireland is growing. I have attended several meetings of representatives of Welsh and Irish authorities. This is a highly encouraging development. Access to lnterreg—a very substantial fund—would enable Gwynedd and Dyfed to benefit from development in the Republic of Ireland.
Indeed, there has been substantial development in the Republic owing to its objective 1 status and its eligibility for cohesion fund money. In particular, the development of the central corridor through Holyhead and of the southern corridor through Fishguard as Euroroutesroad and rail—is of vital importance. The existence of an autonomous European state out there in the sea west of Wales is a factor of major importance and of enormous advantage to Wales, particularly west Wales.
Mention of objective 1 status, which will take 70 per cent. of all structural fund moneys, brings up the question of eligibility for rural Wales. I hope that the Secretary of State will continue to pursue this matter with the utmost energy. Eligibility would be of enormous advantage to Wales because of the size of the fund and because 75 per cent. funding of capital projects with objective 1 status would be made possible. It would be quite unacceptable if rural Wales were not included in objective I status.
I have said little about the nature and direction of the development in Wales that we wish to see by means of regional policy. That has not been my prime purpose today. I have already touched on the need for the so-called peripheral regions to develop co-operation and to become cohesive areas that trade with each other and share the benefits of contacts. I am not very keen on the term "peripheral regions", as so much depends on what one

defines as the core. Developments of this kind are to be seen in a very interesting way in the statement of intent prepared by the Irish sea partnership of local authorities.
Policymakers need to be aware of the fact that the principle of environmental sustainability must very soon become the prime consideration in economic development—something of which not many people are yet aware. We need to plan accordingly. The shift towards this kind of sustainability—ultimately the only kind of sustainability—will have massive implications for transport, trade and all other aspects of the pattern of production, distribution and consumption. That is something to which we are just beginning to wake up.
Ultimately, if economic activity is not environmentally sustainable, it is not sustainable at all. We hear these days, in very responsible and well-informed quarters, talk of the future of the planet and of mankind being at stake. This is not empty rhetoric. Coming to terms with that fact will have monumental implications for regional policy in Wales, among other things. That is something of which we must be aware now.
In Wales, there are particularly relevant issues, such as our enormous potential for renewable energy. It is possible that we need new instruments of policy to ensure that those resources are developed in such a way as to strengthen the local economy and to empower the local community and enhance local self-reliance, which is a fundamental tenet of environmental sustainability.
I should like to emphasise a particular principle—that, in the context of open European borders and a completed European market, a strong and effective regional policy is absolutely essential. Naturally, we—I refer not just to members of my own party—believe that by far the best way for Wales to advocate this principle within Europe would be as an autonomous nation directly represented in the Community. Until we achieve that status—and afterwards, of course—partnerships between the Community and Welsh local authorities will have a role. So long as there is a need for such a person, we shall need a Secretary of State for Wales who is a vigorous and a committed proponent of regional development. I hope that the current Secretary of State will confirm tonight that he is such a person and that he will prove it in action over the coming months.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the progress that the Welsh economy has made in recent years as a result of the Government's policies; and notes with approval that the Government intends to continue to pursue vigorously these same policies that have brought about this success.'.
The most pressing priority for Wales and the whole United Kingdom is recovery which will bring new companies and new products, strengthen our industries, raise living standard and, above all, bring more jobs. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about that, but I do not for a moment agree with many of his other points.
He said that we had to cut the Welsh Development Agency budget, but the budget over which I am presiding this year is a record in both cash and real terms. As we have seen in the past few days, it and many other factors about Wales are delivering the goods in terms of many new


jobs coming to Wales. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the WDA has a fine future just as surely as it has had a proud track record in recent years.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman also assure the House that the Development Board for Rural Wales has a fine long-term future in continuing the work that it has done so well so far?

Mr. Redwood: Our current plans are for a vigorous programme through that body as well as through the WDA.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North welcomed the idea of partnership, although it is a pity that he almost choked when he used the word "success." He should be proud of the successes of Wales and those of the WDA. It ill behoves him to be jealous of success in the valleys, although I understand his wish to succeed everywhere. But if he is serious about winning votes from Labour in the valleys, he will have to be more enthusiastic about promoting the valleys as well as the other parts of Wales.
Labour's Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) laughs because he does not think that the 'Welsh nationalists could claim votes in the Welsh valleys. There will be more tension between those two parties as they rival each other to paint a portrait of gloom and conduct a Dutch auction of promises that they wil not have to fulfil.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Secretary of State saying that the Conservatives will not contest the valleys? In the local elections, many votes which would normally have gone to the Conservatives went to Plaid Cymru, but that was because the Conservatives did not put up any candidates.

Mr. Redwood: Of course the Conservatives will contest and win many more seats in Wales at the general election because of our economic success. In the long run-up to that election, there will be many disputes between the Opposition parties.
The west Wales task force was called into question in the introductory dirge by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. The WDA director for rural affairs is already acting as the executive on behalf of that task force beause we have not yet made a final appointment. He is doing that because local authorities are involved and wanted the job formally advertised. We are now doing that, but we do not want delay; that is why the rural affairs director is carrying out the task in the meantime.
Today I had the privilege of opening a new business centre at Milford Haven which is making a home for new enterprises in that part of Wales. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North welcomes that. I went on to open a remodelled youth hostel at Trevine, which will also bring business and activity to that part of the national park. I want many more such schemes thriving there, based on the partnership that our activities are bringing to Wales. I wish to see maximum local involvetment in schemes funded by the EC, by the Government or by a variety of means. That is because locally driven and locally determined schemes and locally derived ideas are usually the best, and in a true partnership local people are needed to push ideas.
Of course the Government supported the idea of objective 1 status, but unfortunately the EC was not

enthusiastic. We proposed it and there was no lack of enthusiasm by the Government; nor will there be any lack of enthusiasm in pressing other joint claims by the House to the EC in its review of regional funds and eligibility.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the sustaining of objective 2 status in Clwyd, Glamorgan and Gwent is predicated on the maintenance of assisted area status in those areas? Does he also agree that the Government have designated some of those assisted areas to be downgraded? Those areas will inevitably lose the possibility of objective 2 support as a direct result of London Government policy.

Mr. Redwood: I do not agree at all. We shall urge Wales's case upon the Commission for our revised regional map for our own assisted area status and in the wider connection about which the hon. Gentleman asks. Later in my speech, I shall deal with the state of play on the assisted area map.
A dynamic enterprise economy delivers recovery. The luxuries of yesterday become commonplace today. The jobs of tomorrow will be making things which are still on the drawing board or have yet to be invented. In the depth of the 1981 recession, people asked where the jobs would come from. Few predicted the speed or intensity of growth in pharmaceuticals and electronics, in biochemistry and in services, but that growth was the hallmark of the British recovery and growth of the late 1980s.
In the 1950s most homes lacked television, but by the 1980s practically every household owned one. In the 1970s few had video recorders, but they are now regular features of the living room. In the early 1980s, the rich few owned a microwave; today a majority of Welsh kitchens sport one. So it may be, too, with home computers, video cameras, satellite and cable television and a host of new products.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: They were all invented in Japan.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman jibes that all those things were invented abroad. They were not, but I wish to see more such products invented and made in Wales and I hope that he shares that aim.
I trust that in moving this motion Opposition Members want Wales to prosper, but they look at only a small part of the story of how that can be brought about. Grants can help to clinch a deal or tip the balance with the marginal investment, but investors come to Wales or expand in Wales for many other reasons, which we must also encourage and support. Prudential Insurance, Toyota and Dow Corning all came without any regional selective assistance grant and they are all very welcome.
The Government have completed their review of assisted areas and have sent their proposals to the European Commission. If we judged by unemployment alone Wales would see its assisted area coverage fall from 85 per cent. to less than half its population, such has been the success in reducing relative unemployment in Wales compared with elsewhere in the country and in the Community.

Mr. David Hanson: rose—

Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to complete my point. He might need to hear it all before he puts a question.
I assure Opposition Members that the proposals put to the Commission are a much better deal for Wales than that, but they will have to be patient about knowing the final outline of the map. We shall announce the results when we know the outcome of the EC review. My aim has been to ensure that Wales gets all the help that it needs to continue recovery. I have taken structural change, remoteness from markets and proximity to other assisted areas into account. I have not sold Wales short. I trust that the EC will now back our judgment.

Mr. Hanson: Would the Minister care to comment on activity rates in Wales? An examination of that aspect rather than a statement about the number of people employed shows a far worse picture than the one that he has just painted.

Mr. Redwood: I have explained the factors that I am taking into account. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to see higher activity rates. I am not satisfied with one person in 10 being out of work. There is much to do, and that is the purpose of all my actions at the Welsh Office.

Mr. Llwyd: The Minister says that he has taken proximity to assisted areas into account. Is that good or bad for Aberconwy, which is sandwiched between two such areas?

Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can work that out for himself. I made a simple point and, on reflection, he should be able to answer his question to his own satisfaction.
Why do businesses come to Wales? I have asked business men this while encouraging them to do so. They tell me of many things that persuade them, such as the warmth of the welcome and the fact that Japanese, Americans, German and other people from far afield are made to feel at home.
Those business men are attracted to Wales, above all, by the quality of the work force, who are well trained with an excellent record of Labour relations. Good cost levels and a competitive exchange rate are also attractive, because companies are shifting production from the dearer areas of Europe. Also of significance is the fact that we have the lowest interest rates in western Europe. Other factors cited by business men include the availability of good premises, the beauty of the landscape and the quality of life.
It is worth noting the achievements that the country has put together. According to Cambridge Econometrics, the growth forecasts for 1993 reveal that that of Germany is set to be minus 2 per cent., that of France to be minus 0·6 per cent. and that of Spain to be minus 0·5 per cent. The economy of Wales, however, is forecast to grow by plus 1·8 per cent. Let us hope that that forecast is wrong and that the economy will grow by an even greater amount, as it well could.
The inflation rate in Germany, Spain and Italy stands at 4·2 per cent., and 4·6 per cent. respectively. That of the United Kingdom is 1·3 per cent. The interest rates of Germany and France are around 7·5 per cent. and those of Italy 10 per cent., while in the United Kingdom they stand at 6 per cent. That is the kind of undercutting that I like to do, and that is the way to promote business.
Unit labour costs are also extremely important to manufacturers. In the past year, those of Germany, Spain and Italy have grown by 8·3 per cent., 5 per cent. and 4·8 per cent. respectively. In the United Kingdom, however, they have been falling.

Mr. Paul Flynn: It is because we are a low-wage economy.

Mr. Redwood: No, it is not because of low wages; it is because we offer high productivity and good rates of growth in productivity. Opposition Members do not like that, but it is true.
Economic recovery is what we want. The long dole queues across Europe are a malignant growth that we must cut out—the patient needs surgery. We want low levels of unemployment and high levels of investment, low levels of business failures and high levels of success, low costs and high productivity.
Cutting interest rates from 15 per cent. to 6 per cent. was the biggest job creation programme of all—£11,000 million of extra spending power was left with United Kingdom companies. That is money for research and development and for new factories. At last the investor. choosing between Britain, France and Germany, comes to us for the cheapest money.
Keeping taxes low gives rewards for success. Opposition Members, peddling the politics of jealousy, want to tax the entrepreneur more. If they had their way, those who create jobs or make profits would be taxed more highly than our competitors. Why, then, would those entrepreneurs stay? Why should new business men come, if more than half of their earnings would be taken by the state? Keeping taxes on profits the lowest in western Europe—33 per cent. corporation tax, with 25 per cent. for small companies—counts with investors and creates the right atmosphere for business success.
The reform of our labour laws has also been telling. Employers and employees alike need to know where they stand. Everybody's rights and interests should be protected in a clear and fair way. Sensible labour laws breed good industrial relations [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh about everything apart from assisted area status. They obviously do not have a clue about how business works. They do not know what it is that attracts investors and creates jobs. I will tell them more, because I think that they should know.
In recent years, industrial relations have been transformed. Last year, across the country, there were only 253 stoppages—the lowest ever recorded. In Wales, the record is even better. Only 10 days per 1,000 employees were lost through strikes in Wales, compared with 24 per 1,000 in the United Kingdom as a whole and many more in most of our competitor countries.
Business needs freedom—freedom from red tape, from bureaucracy and from the encumbrances of vexatious rules imposed by vexatious minds. We cannot afford to put investors off with all the paraphernalia of the social chapter, as some Opposition Members seek to do. The best social welfare policy is one that delivers jobs. There is little point in extending workers' rights too far if all that results is that they get the sack because their employers cannot afford to keep them.
As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North almost identified in his speech, underlying all is the need to promote free trade. Backing business in world


markets can win orders. We must avoid or remove artificial barriers put in the way of global trading. Countries like ours, with strong manufacturing bases, cannot afford to let themselves be hemmed in by protectionism. Protected trade brings longer dole queues.

Mr. Alex Carlile: It is extremely encouraging to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak with such enthusiasm about free trade, and I agree with everything that he has said about it. Does he agree that one of the greatest encumbrances to free trade in the European Community is the fact that each member state has its own currency? Will he now become a convert to a single currency, which would facilitate free trade in Europe?

Mr. Redwood: No, I do not accept that point at all. People can and do trade in a single currency of their choice—the common currency—and many already do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman has not done enough deals in international markets to know the modest cost of exchange transactions against the overall costs of the deal transacted. If Opposition Members spent more time talking to business men and understood the real issues faced by the wealth creators today, they might make a more constructive contribution to the debate. We should praise the entrepreneur, not undermine him. We should encourage him, not overtax him. We should see him as the job creator, not as the pariah of socialist mythology.
Government can, of course, do a lot to help. Government must provide the roads and railway lines. They must stand up for fair and open markets. They should provide help where high unemployment, massive structural change or remote locations need it. None of that will work, however, if the general policy for growth is wrong.
Wales has been the prime beneficiary of that approach. Let no one have any doubt about the fact that Wales is making it: Wales is leading the United Kingdom out of the recession. The recovery is gathering speed all the time. Unemployment in Wales is now 0·2 percentage points below the United Kingdom average. At the beginning of the recession it was 0·8 percentage points above that average. In May 1986, it was 2·6 percentage points higher. Long-term unemployment in Wales has fallen by 40 per cent. in the past seven and a half years. How I welcome that.
Thousands of new jobs have been created by investors from overseas, who have been attracted by the skills of the Welsh work force, the relatively low taxes and the good communications. My predecessors as Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales made enormous strides in investing in communications, developing strategies to meet particular problems—as the valleys programme demonstrates—and enabling the Welsh Development Agency to play its role in attracting development and promoting the visionary Cardiff bay scheme. I pay particular tribute to their special achievement in generating a spirit of co-operation in developing the economy of Wales which transcends many of the boundaries of politics and ideology. There is a team in Wales which is out to win for Wales, and I am proud to lead it.
International competition is getting keener by the day. I want more skill added to the products that we make. We do not want to be a branch plant economy making low-value products which are vulnerable to any downturn

in world markets. We must strive for ever higher quality. Wales should lead in new products and quality goods. We must be at the cutting edge of innovation. We must not concentrate on inward investment success alone and neglect the need to develop industry at home. A great deal has happened and an enterprise culture is emerging in Wales. Between 1979 and 1991, more than 16,000 firms set up business in Wales and manufacturing output has increased by almost two thirds—more than double the increase for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Flynn: That is fantasy.

Mr. Redwood: How sad it is to hear the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) say that it is fantasy. He should see what I have seen in recent weeks—great companies in Wales with great ideas.

Mr. Flynn: It has been instructive and enjoyable to hear the wish fulfilment fantasy of the right hon. Gentleman at such length, but can he tell us why the most progressive firm in Wales, at the hard edge of technology, which developed one of Britain's greatest inventions in the past 22 years, has left Wales? That invention—the transputer—is now being manufactured in France and Italy. The transputer, manufactured at INMOS at Newport, has been lost to Wales as a result of Government indolence and failure to invest in it. The French and Italian Governments have been more than happy to invest in it.

Mr. Redwood: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I wish that he had seen some of the firms that I have visited recently, which show how Wales is innovating, has many talented minds and is putting together a great record of success. I intend to give a special push to the work to encourage more entrepreneurship, more innovation and high quality business.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: We have listened to 10 minutes of extremely optimistic cliches about the economy. The right hon. Gentleman anticipate that, in the next 12 months, the Welsh economy will grow by 1·8 per cent. Would he care to speculate about what has happened to the growth rate since January 1990? I suggest it has stood at minus 5 per cent. That is what the record says.

Mr. Redwood: We know that there has been a recession. It has been universal across the western world, and it is regrettable. I am discussing how we get out of recession and how Wales will lead the way. The forecast of 1·8 per cent. was independent. I have said that I hope that it will be right. Indeed, I hope that we shall improve on that.
The training and enterprise councils exist to lift the skills and encourage the new businesses of Wales. The Welsh work force has been the single most important reason for success and will be so in the future. I want the TECs to do all that they can to raise skill levels, help the unemployed to get back to work, enable young people to start off on life-time employment, and help deliver a work force that is even better qualified and skilled, and better able to adapt to new demands.
Like many advanced countries, Britain is in the throes of her fourth industrial revolution. The first three saw us change from water power to steam power to electric power; from a dominant textile industry, to a dominant engineering industry, to a strong consumer products industry; from canals and carts, through the age of the railway, to motorways. The fourth revolution takes us on


to brain power, from older industries to high-tech industries, from motorways to Telecom's digital highways. Skilling and reskilling Britain is the new imperative.
Excellence in education is central to that task. A good start at school and college is vital. I want the universities and colleges of Wales to develop their links with business so that industry knows what they can deliver and the education world in Wales knows what industry wants. We must encourage joint ventures, initiatives and exchanges of ideas and personnel to maximise the enormous opportunities before us.
I also want working for oneself to be an option. The brightest and best leaving college and university should not automatically want to become journalists, civil servants or commentators writing elegantly about Europe's decline—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or politicians."] No, nor politicians—but some of us were in business and industry before we entered politics. Graduates should want to plunge into business, shaping the future with new ideas for commercial success.
We are now embarked on changing the subject and style of debate in the European Community. After months and years of sterile abstractions and constitutional wrangling, we are turning the focus to the pay packet and life style issues which affect every citizen. The Copenhagen summit began to ask the right questions about jobs and recovery. Our Prime Minister placed Britain and British ideas at the centre of the debate. He persuaded others to confront the reality that during the years in which America created 30 million new private sector jobs the EC managed only 3 million. While Japan has 2·5 per cent. out of work, the EC has almost 10 per cent. EC labour costs are now a fifth higher than in the United States and EC non-wage labour costs are almost twice as high as in the United States.
In Wales since 1988–89, United States firms have created 7,261 jobs; Japanese firms 4,964 jobs, and German firms 3,126 jobs. That is because Wales is better than the EC average in many respects and as such has benefited from more new investment and new jobs. I do not want a low-wage society, but I do want a low-cost economy because that is how to guarantee prosperity. That means high productivity and good ideas.
Britain can now lead the EC debate about restoring competitiveness. I say to many, "Come and see what is happening in Wales." As the dole queues lengthen on the continent, Wales is winning new business and new businesses. In the past week, 1,000 new jobs have been created in Crumlin from ASAT, 480 new jobs in Gwent from Aiwa, a possible 1,000 new jobs from the British Coal Enterprise initiatives, and 240 new jobs from six companies announcing expansion plans. Over the weekend, I announced 58 jobs for Swansea at Addis and another 160 new jobs are on the threshold of announcement as we meet tonight. That is winning for Wales, based on an agenda for a competitive Wales.
Fortress Europe or castle Wales could not succeed. Turning away foreign investors or putting them off with high taxes, strikes or too many regulations is the road to ruin, not the path to prosperity—[Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Caerphilly think that it is so

funny; I am sure that his constituents will be delighted to know that he giggles throughout a debate on how jobs can be brought to the valleys and his area of Wales.
Over a year ago, the United Kingdom persuaded the EC not to outlaw digital technology for satellite television, and not to make the Sky transmissions illegal. Two weeks ago, the United Kingdom quietly scored another important success in Brussels: we stood up for Welsh industrial interests. In so doing, we stood up for wider United Kingdom interests—indeed, for the future success of the consumer electronics industry in Europe as a whole.
Ministers agreed an action plan to help promote wide-screen and high definition television. We were able to secure a valuable commitment that UK-based manufacturers such as Sony will be able to participate fully and without discrimination in future research programmes into digital television technology. There are those in Europe for whom this will not be welcome news, but it is good news for Wales and for the House.
We helped to shape a sensible policy for a vital new tecinology. Companies appreciate that, and many consumers and future employees in that industry will come to thank us. Those who tried to stop Europe developing digital systems were carrying out the industrial equivalent of burning books because the ideas were said to be heresies. It would have been damaging, but it could not have worked.

Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State has mentioned a significant number of job gains in Wales. How many of those are in the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys? Am I right in saying that the answer is virtually none? In view of the difficulties that have been faced in those westerly parts of Wales, can the Secretary of State propose any new strategies to overcome that problem in the near future?

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the bulk of the jobs were in areas other than those that he mentions, but I have already described what I have been doing in west Wales. I said that I intend to back fully the work of the west Wales task force, and the hon. Gentleman should wait to see developments. I intend to do for west Wales what I am doing for south Wales and for all parts of Wales.
The British Government's case to the EC is the case of Wales, the cause of the whole United Kingdom, and the crusade for jobs throughout Europe: do not damage competitiveness by passing unnecessary laws; do not put investors off with all the paraphernalia of the social chapter; and do not keep out new ideas or technologies just because they were dreamed up elsewhere, but realise that it is a world market and understand that the best social policy for the unemployed is a job.
All those opportunities must be grasped if we are not to fall behind. Europe must wake up, for Asia's tigers are roaring. We must reply. We must do more to curb and then to cure the European dole queues. We must shake off the shackles which still hold the economy back from developing its full potential. Away with restraint, away with petty restrictions, away with the head-in-the-sand thinking which refuses to adopt new ideas or technologies just because they were not invented here—we in Wales must scour the world for the best production processes, the


best management ideas arid the best products, and we must make sure that they are produced here in Wales and sent out again across the globe.
Wales at its best is world class, able to hold its own in any company across the globe. Products are better made in Wales and should be better designed in Wales. Wales must be free, dynamic and vibrant, taking on the world—and beating it.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and thank Plaid Cymru for choosing this opportune subject. The Secretary of State's speech was stronger on ideology than on facts and exhibited no detailed knowledge of Wales or the Welsh economy. I was not sure whether it was his Llangollen Tory party conference speech all over again, or some old material rehash of a Rothschild induction course for junior clerical staff. However, it was a preparation for the great betrayal that is to come over assisted area boundaries.
Until we heard the Secretary of State's speech, we were looking for a commitment to keep the assisted area map of Wales roughly along its present lines, perhaps with some tinkering on the borders. We were not expecting to have the Secretary of State speak for well over 20 minutes without saying whether Wales would lose out from the boundary revision, in which he has been playing a major preparatory part—even if it was mostly before he became Secretary of State—through the alterations that we now expect before the summer recess.
We also expected to hear about the timing and to have a clearer restatement that we shall have an opportunity to debate in the House the specific implications for Wales of the changes. We do not want the announcement to be sneaked in on the last day before the summer recess, only to find that the only opportunity that we get to debate the changes will be in October, during the spillover part of the Session.
That would be wholly unsatisfactory. It is why tonight is a suitable opportunity—there may be another later—for the Government to give a cast-iron promise that the House, and in particular Welsh Members of Parliament, will have the opportunity to discuss the sort of damage that I now expect because of the little hints in the speech by the Secretary of State.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention for nothing, and with great pride, the three firms that had come to Wales in the past few years without any regional selective assistance. He was not telling us that as though Wales had won the triple crown; he was basically saying that if Wales could attract those three firms without regional selective assistance, who needs it?
The three projects include Toyota's new engine plant on Deeside. Because of surplus capacity in the motor industry, the EC would not permit any regional selective assistance for either the engine plant, which came to Wales, or the much larger assembly line, which many people thought would come to Wales, until, in the words of the previous Secretary of State, it was snatched away at the last minute. The assembly plant that Wales did not get is 10 times bigger than the engine plant that it did get. Whether that was also a great betrayal is a matter of

dispute between the previous Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State for Wales but one, Lord Walker.
The Secretary of State also mentioned Prudential Assurance, which is located in my home of Cardiff. He was careful with his words when he said that that firm came without any regional selective assistance. It would be interesting to know whether he is claiming that it came without any Government grant. It received another form of Government grant—I do not know whether it was an urban development grant or some other form of grant, but it certainly had a substitute grant equivalent to regional selective assistance. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that, if Wales loses regional selective assistance, it will still attract a flow of firms.
The third firm that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned was Dow Corning, which is also close to my home. It has a long-standing commitment to Wales and I am pleased that it continues to provide employment in the Barry, Sully and Penarth areas.
The Secretary of State responded to a point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) about the size of the Welsh Development Agency's budget. The right hon. Gentleman contradicted what he thought was an assertion by the hon. Gentleman that the WDA's budget had been reduced, but that was not what the hon. Gentleman had said. In fact, he said that the Exchequer grant to the WDA had been reduced, which meant that it had to fund more and more of this year's expenditure by selling more and more of its family silver. It can continue to do that for only so long.
Obviously, the pearl in the oyster—if I can mix my metaphors—in the family silver of the WDA is the Treforest trading estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), which is either largely on the way to being sold or has been sold. The WDA has only so many Treforest equivalents that it can sell. Now, half the WDA's expenditure must be funded not just by the sale of the odd piece of land or by producing a bespoke factory for a client and then selling it when it is built, but by selling industrial estates that have been built up over many years—60 years in the case of Treforest.
What the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North said was correct. The amount of money that the Government put into the WDA each year is being reduced, so the proportion that the WDA must find from its own resources is unsustainable. If it continues at the current level, selling Treforest this year, Deeside industrial park next year and Fforestfach the year after, in five years it will have nothing left. It is not in a position to build up the asset base that would allow it to continue disposing of core assets.

Mr. Rod Richards: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that selling industrial estates is part of the process of consolidating an economy that is becoming stronger, or does he want Wales always to have a dependency culture economy?

Mr. Morgan: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has posed mutually exclusive questions that cover all the possibilities on the waterfront. If both rents and capital values for land become unrealistically high—rents in Wales are now above those in the London area—there will be a major squeeze on the ability of firms to fund expansion. Too much of their money will disappear in


rents, which have shot up to £4 or £4.50 per sq ft a year, which is much higher than in the London area. That is frightening because, if the grants are removed but the rents remain high, Wales will become a less competitive area for production. It will lose the low-cost advantage that the Secretary of State spent 25 minutes telling us was its most important asset.
Again, the Secretary of State espouses the message that we must believe in the success of the Welsh economy and that it is incumbent even on Opposition parties to trumpet that. Anyone who doubts that or who believes that there is still a long way to go is somehow a traitor to the marketing effort of the Welsh Office and the WDA—the team Wales, of which he is the self-appointed captain. He was certainly not appointed captain by anyone in Wales; he was imposed from the outside. That makes us sceptical of his desire to lead us in a particular direction, for which most people in Wales did not vote and in which they do not want to go.
We are also sceptical of the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors to overclaim success and to make the figures fit the marketing strategy. They believe that if we keep talking about success, success will come. We should look objectively at the statistics for employment and unemployment and for new factories and the jobs that they create, relative to the number of jobs being lost both through the closure of coal mines and in the steelworks and other traditional primary providers of employment in Wales. It is only by balancing the new jobs being created with the old jobs being destroyed that we can work out how well Wales is doing. During the last eight or nine years, hyping up the success of Wales has become an occupational hazard of being Secretary of State for Wales. We have seen another example of that tonight.
My fundamental case is that the reason why the repackaging of Wales has been one of the great success stories of Europe is not what has been happening in Wales, but simply the choice of marketing strategy by Lord Walker and Dr. Gwyn Jones, the chairman of the WDA in late 1988 and early 1989. It was a deliberate decision to market Wales as the great success story of all Europe's regions. It involved all sorts of tricks of the trade in redefining what was an inward investment project, and the construction of dustbin lists of huge numbers of projects, many of which did not exist or were double counted so that they would appear simultaneously in two counties.
Royal Air Force stations are now being counted as inward investment projects. There are two in the list produced for the past year—RAF St. Athan and RAF Sealand. Those are not conventionally defined inward investment projects. The list also includes brass plate changes in the ownership of firms that do not result in any gain of jobs—but sometimes result in a loss of jobs—being claimed as inward investment projects simply to reach the magic figure of the 201 such projects that apparently came to Wales last year.

Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that his marketing strategy for Wales would be to say that everything is wrong and nobody comes to Wales?

Mr. Morgan: Absolutely not. We need an objective, balanced figure. We do not want a rapid growth in the statistical physiotherapy service of the Government,

massaging the figures and claiming that new jobs are being created when they are not. Those are not my words. Only the other day, I received a letter from one of the most successful counties in Wales about the claim to have 201 inward investment projects in the year from April 1992 to April 1993. Of the 201 projects, 40 were supposed to have come to the county.
I wrote to the county's industrial development unit to ask what it could tell me about the 40 projects and whether it was aware of them. It sent a letter last week to say that it was not aware of 26 of the 40 projects. More than half the projects appear to be unknown to the unit. That is not to say that the projects do not exist, but it is likely that they do not exist given the knowledge base of the local county council.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that we object to neither the optimism nor the sense of the view that we have to sell Wales? That is not what is happening from my point of view. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would not want the Secretary of State for Wales to believe everything that he hears from the Welsh Office. He could do worse than read the report of the Public Accounts Committee on safeguarding and creating jobs in Wales.
The PAC exposed a case in my constituency of 1,000 jobs that were said to have been created or protected. In fact, all that had happened was that British Airways had sold the factory to General Electric in America. No new jobs were created. I am glad that the factory was sold, because the new owners look like being good employers. In that sense, the factory was safeguarded. But we shculd not play games with statistics. That is dangerous because it undermines the authority of the Government and of the Secretary of State among the people of Wales.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about General Electric's takeover of the extremely successful British Airways engine overhaul plant. The factory was set up at Nangarw during the war as a shadow factory and has been an exceptional success ever since. That is typical of the kind of firms that we want to see in Wales. However, no new jobs arose from that takeover. It was brass plate investment.
Another example is when, through compulsory competitive tendering, a hospital got rid of its local catering staff and employed Gardner Merchant. That was classed as inward investment. No additional jobs were involved. Health authority or local authority staff lost their jobs, and Gardner Merchant had a contract. That was one of the inward investment projects in West Glamorgan that was claimed by the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh Development International last year.

Mr. Richards: One proposed project which the hon. Gentleman has campaigned against viciously is the development of Cardiff bay. The Government are to put £160 million into that project, which has been marketed throughout Europe. It will create thousands—probably tens of thousands—of jobs and make assisted area status unnecessary in south Wales and many parts of the valleys. How can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he wants to bring jobs to Wales when he has campaigned so hard against the biggest and most important development in any city in Europe?

Mr. Morgan: I am terribly pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman on that point. He said that I had


campaigned viciously against the Cardiff bay barrage project. I must defer to his expertise in matters of viciousness. We are talking about whether the assisted area map of Wales is to be changed. The hon. Gentleman has ideas that that project could take the Cardiff area out of the assisted area map and mean that it would not need that status. I am sorry, but I think that assisted area status is needed in Cardiff and the other areas of Wales where the status presently applies.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan: No. I must get on.
We are trying to work out objectively whether the jobs coming in equal the number of jobs going out. We are extremely pleased when substantial new employers move in. I cite the Bosch development at Pontyclun, the British Airways developments at Rhoose airport and Llantrisant on the way to Tonyrefail" the Trico development in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), the Sony expansion at Pencoed, the Toyota engine plant at Deeside and obviously the two new plants at Crumlin which were announced by the Secretary of State last week at or near Welsh Question Time. Those are eight extremely important new pillars of the 'Welsh economy. I am sure that they will provide hundreds of new jobs in the next few years.
Those eight projects are the only ones of which I am aware that have been set up in the past three years that have the prospect of employing more people than a typical coal mine. I accept that Welsh coal mines are smaller on average than pits in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. Welsh pits employ about 400 or 500 people. The problem is that we see coal mines closing and balance the job losses against the new projects of coal mine size that have come in.
Is the hype justified? Is the success story that has put at risk so much of our development area status justified? Two points arise. If one packs out the inward investment to produce, say, the 201 projects last year, it has a depressing effect on encouragement of local business in Wales, to which the Secretary of State referred many times. If the Government keep emphasising the importance of one statistical indicator—inward investment—they make self-generated investment seem second-class.
The Government's emphasis on inward investment has had a depressing effect and the Secretary of State should examine it. We now have a new chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and he should examine the psychology of encouraging the local business culture.
We must also consider how unemployment is calculated. When the United Kingdom Government decide whether to reduce the number of areas covered by assisted area designation, 75 if not 80 per cent. of the weighted factors that they take into account relate to the headline count of unemployment. When the European Community draws the map of regional development and assisted areas, it looks much more at gross domestic product per head.
Headline unemployment was a reasonably reliable indicator until about 10 years ago. It is decreasingly so. People might argue that the attacks on the validity and objectivity of the unemployment count should apply evenly across the regions and that, therefore, the relative status of Wales should not be affected.
However, we can see by comparing the level of employment with the level of unemployment in Wales that taking so many people off the unemployment register and putting them on to the sickness benefit register has had a particularly strong impact in Wales. It has not had such a strong impact on the south-east of England, largely because unemployment is so new that the area does not have a comprehensive employment service to get hold of the unemployed and say. "Wouldn't you rather sign on sick instead? It will get you off the register and give you more benefit."
The ultimate hypocrisy of the Government is that, having successfully persuaded so many people in Wales to sign off the unemployment register and go on to the sickness register, the Prime Minister says that he cannot believe that so many more people are sick in the light of all the money that they are spending on the NHS; so he then attacks sickess benefit. People will then be pushed back on to the unemployment register in the autumn after the changes which we fear will come. That would be seen badly in Wales.
The Government may have wanted to reduce the headline count of unemployment in the first three months of this year because they thought that it would make confidence lift off. It will be pretty tough if the Government push those same people off the sickness register back on to the dole once they think that the reduction in unemployment has taken off. We want objective data on sickness and unemployment benefit, so that there is an accurate measure across the country of which regions are doing well and which are doing badly and need assistance.

Mr. Flynn: Another feature of the Welsh Office statistical massage parlour is that we arc told that we are the beneficiaries of economic miracles in our constituencies, whereas unemployment has increased 20 per cent. in my constituency and 22 per cent. in Monmouth. I asked the Government for figures on the number of jobs lost by outward divestment, through jobs moving overseas. The Welsh Office says that it cannot provide such figures because it does not collect them. It measures the jobs coming in, but not those moving out.

Mr. Morgan: This is the good news only Government. They believe in purveying anecdotes as if they were objective statistics. My hon. Friend cites a classic example of the Government choosing not to consider outward divestment because it does not fit in with the marketing strategy. We want a statistically objective count of unemployment and employment, so that we may identify which areas need assistance.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that manufacturing output in Wales has increased 25 per cent. since 1986? Is that not a general statistic rather than a detail plucked out of the air?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that it is a general manufacturing statistic—but one can always pick out a favourable statistic as though it were a general principle. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the travel-to-work area that he represents can dispense with assisted area status? I will not press him to respond immediately because that could be embarrassing for him.
We understand that Newport is in peril of losing its assisted area status, despite the statistic that the hon. Gentleman gave.
We further understand that it is possible that the Cardiff travel-to-work area will be split in two, along European regional development fund objective 2 lines, so that southern Cardiff and the southern part of the vale of Glamorgan will remain an assisted area, whereas the northern part will not. Presumably, the splitting of travel-to-work areas will occur in London, and that would set a precedent.
We want to know how much assistance will be transferred out of Wales to the southern coastal towns. I see the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms. Lait) lurking on the Conservative Back Benches, and I do not imagine that she is doing so for no purpose. I do not think that it is out of her interest for Wales; rather, it is for what she can grab from Wales. Naturally, that worries us.
Wales has a long way to go before it reaches the economic self-sufficiency that will enable it to do without subsidies. We noted all the exciting announcements made by the Secretary of State and his predecessors, and all the claims that Wales can be safely attached to the four great motor regions of Europe—Catalonia, Baden-Würtemberg, Lombardy and Rhone-Alpes. If they are the wheels of the Europe's motor regions, Wales is the exhaust pipe. We are getting there, but we have a long way to go. We cannot afford to leave it to a Secretary of State who is a bird of passage and who will be looking for promotion away from Wales. We need a Secretary of State who represents Wales and who is completely committed to the interests of Wales.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is with some temerity that I intervene in a debate chiefly relating to Wales, but the motion makes reference to regional development in the United Kingdom and in peripheral regions, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said that the southern coastal towns are quickly turning into peripheral regions.
I am a great supporter of regional development. Coming as I do from Scotland, I remember when, 30 years ago, Rootes came to Linwood—two miles from my home at the time—and the destabilising effect that that had on the local economy. I remember also IBM moving to Greenock and providing jobs for many women whose husbands were working in the shipyards that so signally failed to compete.
Later, there were road, motorway and other infrastructure developments, new factories, high-quality communications, land reclamation, tax breaks, rate relief and seedcorn capital—just the same as in Wales. The policy was very successful, despite the whingeing from the Opposition Benches.
A graphic measure of regional development policy success is that historically, Scotland and Wales were the first to enter a recession and the last to emerge from it. This time, it is reckoned that, in general, Scotland and Wales were the last in, suffered less drastic recession than elsewhere, and are emerging from it earlier. Because of the success of the regional development policy, half the personal computers sold in Europe are made in Scotland.
It takes about an hour to drive the 60 miles from Glasgow to Perth. On a good day—perhaps I should not admit it—I can drive from London to Cardiff in under three hours. The train takes two hours.
Unemployment throughout Wales is 10·2 per cent. There are only three constituencies where unemployment is above 13 per cent. In Hastings and Rye it is 13 per cent.; in Sittingbourne and Sheerness 14·6 per cent.; in Thanet 16·5 per cent.
A comparison of the coastal towns of the south-east with Wales and Scotland is dramatic. For instance, Hastings is 67 miles from London, a little further than it is from Glasgow to Perth. During the day, it takes a minimum of two hours to drive those 67 miles. It often takes two and a half hours. The train takes an hour and a half—about the same time as it takes to get to Doncaster. The southern half of the A21 is still single carriageway. The A259, the route to the channel tunnel, the continent and prosperity, would be recognised, bar the tarmacadam, by the smugglers of the 18th century.
Hastings has some home-grown companies, but it was a branch plant economy, which is how the Secretary of State described Wales historically. When the recession hit, there were the inevitable closures. Our biggest employers are the local council and the health service. While both are vital, neither can be called a wealth creator.
We have high levels of drug and alcohol abuse, many single-parent families and alarmingly high levels of child abuse. Wages are well below the national average—reminiscent and indicative of inner-city problems. one of the indicators for assisted area status. The bleak s. atistics are similar to those in Scotland and Wales 30 years ago, when they embarked upon their regional development policy. We have seen that policy work. We must help other areas which need it now.
While I understand and appreciate that the Welsh, the Scots and other regions like the north-east and the north-west would like to hold on to what they already have, places such as Hastings, Sittingbourne and Thanet need to benefit as well. We are not asking for much when we ask for assisted area status. We can only get selective and enterprise grants, help with industrial premises and the consultancy services of the Department of Trade and Industry.
There are new poor areas in the United Kingdom. The south coast towns are part of them. We must adjust our development policies to take these changes on board. We must ensure that it is not only the United Kingdom Government who are aware of the empty factories, the length of the dole ques and the harm that is being done to the good and honest people we see around us.
The EC Commissioner, who provides so much of the money now, needs also to be aware of those changed circumstances. Karel van Miert, the commissioner responsible, should visit the rich south-east, the area that he says is structurally and economically strong, and see the problems for himself. He must take on board the successes of the traditional development areas and learn about the difficulties of the new ones.
We must change our regional devlopment policy, so that it recognises the new realities and enables areas such as the south coast towns, which are weak, to become as economically strong as, dare I say it, Wales and Scotland. We must refocus our regional development policy so as to enable all the British Isles, as they need it, to benefit from it.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall be brief, because others want to speak in this short debate.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Ms Lait) was one of the best critiques and condemnations I have heard of 13 or 14 years of Conservative rule and of the kind of ideology that the Secretary of State—I do not want to be rude to him—has espoused since the early 1980s.

Ms Lait: When the Labour party was in power many years ago, what did it do to help peripheral towns on the south coast?

Mr. Davies: I find that interesting, but I do not think that unemployment was as the hon. Lady described. I mean no disrespect, but apparently Hastings and Rye are now on the periphery. That shows the general decline in the British economy, vis-a-vis the European economy, in the past 13 or 14 years. I cannot see how that decline will be arrested, but I shall return to that point later.
I shall concentrate on assisted area status for my constituency and the effect that removal of intermediate status would have on it and on much of west Wales. I shall try to argue briefly that we deserve an uplift to the full assisted area status that we enjoyed until the early 1980s when, in his review, Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, removed Llanelli's full development area status.
A few months later—I am not arguing cause and effect—a large private steel works, which had operated for a long time, closed for various reasons, with the loss of 1,200 jobs and ancillary jobs. Llanelli never regained its full development area status. The map that was drawn by Lord Joseph seemed to he cast in stone, and no changes were allowed to it.

Mr. Richards: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when he was a Treasury Minister in the late 1970s, overmanning in the British steel industry was at crisis point—not unlike, perhaps, the present overmanning of the German steel industry?

Mr. Davies: I do not dispute that many sections of British industry were overtnanned for a considerable time, and much had to be done to reduce that overmanning, but the point that I am making is that, in 1980–81 my constituency lost assisted area status. We have not recovered from the closure of the steel works, which was privately owned rather than nationalised—I do not want to waste time on an argument over its ownership, because it is not important.
In 1979, fewer people were unemployed in my constituency than they are today, and income per head was higher. Economic activity rates were higher and—perhaps overmanning was a small part of this—40 per cent. of the work force in the Llanelli area were employed in production. The Secretary of State says that Wales is making it. That may be so, but in Llanelli they are making less of it today than they were 14 years ago. I accept that the statistics are somewhat simplistic, but the figure is now down to about 30 per cent.
Since 1979, the standard of living in my constituency has declined. That industrial decline is mirrored in Wales, which is the poorest region of Britain, with the lowest income per head. Unemployment is higher than in 1979. Activity rates in Wales are lower than in 1979.
That also mirrors the decline in the British economy relative to western Europe, which was shown by the speech of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. There has been a consequent effect not only for our economy and our industry but for our public services, with a breakdown in community discipline and family values and disciplines.
The M4 motorway has brought great benefits, but the theory was that it would have a trickle-down effect. I see the Secretary of State nodding. In the 1980s, the teenage radical right advocated the trickle-down theory in the economy.
I do not wish to be rude—not as rude as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—but I do not know whether those on the teenage radical right have grown up or whether they still believe in the trickle-down theory, which has largely been discredited. In any case, it has not worked with the M4.
There has been little investment west of Swansea in places such as Llanelli, which has a great manufacturing, engineering and mining tradition. As we have heard, most of the investment has gone further east, so the M4 trickle-down theory has not worked. It was always argued that more factories would come to Bridgend, until all the land was taken, and that they would then go to Neath and Port Talbot—or vice versa—and then Swansea. My constituency has not received minor, let alone substantial, new investment in manufacturing since 1979.
I do not believe that assisted area status, or inward investment, as it is called, is a panacea. We should begin by examining local industry in terms of sub-contracting, because many major firms, especially motor firms, sub-contract. Llanelli contains quite a few motor manufacturing and component firms. We should consider ways of improving the quality of what is produced by Welsh sub-contractors.
Assisted area status is not a panacea, but it is of enormous help to a constituency like mine in obtaining manufacturing and engineering investment, which would not only provide jobs and hope for our young people but would preserve the many skills that we still have. Those skills will not last much longer unless we have the investment to enable us to take advantage of them.
The Secretary of State will no doubt say that I am whingeing and offering nothing but doom and gloom. lie made great play of his years in the City and his time at Rothschild, which I am sure was valuable experience. However, I do not think that anyone from Rothschild or any other merchant bank who was considering the world economy would be too optimistic about inward investment to my part of the United Kingdom. The world economy does not look very good, and the unification of Germany does not encourage inward investment from Europe to the west of Britain.
Perhaps the Secretary of State secretly agrees that the combination of a single market, the Maastricht treaty and the channel tunnel—the latter involves Hastings and Rye—will make it even more difficult to attract the investment that I believe we need, certainly west of Swansea and perhaps west of Bridgend.
To me, the treaty means the centralisation even further away of economic and monetary power. It takes power from politicians and puts it in the hands of technicians. It means that politicians are unable to react to the problems caused by the marketplace. I shall not continue with that argument, because we have said it all before.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) did not seem to know where the periphery was. The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye believes that it is in Hastings. I can tell the hon. Gentleman where it is—he is in it. Aberystwyth is the periphery; beyond Aberystwyth is Ireland and then the United States. We usually consider Britain in terms of north and south, but let us consider it in terms of east and west. East Britain does quite well but, if one draws a line down the middle, west Britain—especially parts of Wales—will find it extremely difficult to compete.
The nationalists' motion states that the European Community is interested in the periphery. The Maastricht treaty is concerned only with the periphery in Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece but not in Wales. Wales does not feature in the infrastructure money, which, in any event, amounts to very little. It is no good the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) waving a document at me. I am perfectly capable of reading the Maastricht treaty, and I know that the motion would do nothing to alleviate the treaty's centralising tendencies. I would have thought that the fact that we are on the periphery is a strong argument for not changing our assisted area status.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, if I was a young person at Rothschild carrying out an analysis of economic development, I would have examined the south and south-east of England. The President of the Board of Trade has advocated the east Thames development—which no doubt the Secretary of State considered in his previous position—quite rightly and logically in the context of the south-east of England. It is clear that that area will develop and benefit because it looks towards Europe, whether it looks east or south.
In terms of the European Community, I would not be too worried about the south and south-east of England. It also has the channel tunnel. Boulogne is much closer to London than Llanelli. The problem is that the south-east will develop, as an economic area, as part of the Pas de Calais. Eventually, people will live in France and come to work in England or vice versa. That area will become partly English and partly French.
We must consider the development of Europe and the centralisation that will inevitably take place as a result of the internal market and the Maastricht treaty. I accept that there is high unemployment in the south of England, but that is mainly due to a debt-ridden service economy which is no longer producing. Only about 5 per cent. of the people who work in the south of England actually make things, and that 5 per cent. are mainly engaged in armaments factories. The rest do not make anything.
Although I have sympathy with the constituents of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye who may be out of work, we should not argue from the particular or on a short-term basis. The south and the south-east will develop as Europe develops. However, the areas that my colleagues and I represent will find it more difficult to develop.
I make no special pleas for my constituency. However, I believe that we have a very good case for bringing back the full development area status to my constituency which we lost in 1980 before the major steelworks closed. The situation changed completely, and it has not returned to what it was in 1979. We should at least retain our intermediate status. I believe that there is a very strong

case to upgrade that to full development area status, so that we can obtain the investment to allow us to continue to make things and to make more things to contribute to the economy of Britain.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I was surprised that Plaid Cymru chose this topic for debate, in view of the central plank of its policy—that Wales should leave the United Kingdom. It seems to me that if that were to take place, investment in Wales would be decimated. It is very easy for a party with no prospects of forming a Government to argue for increased resources without saying where those resources will come from.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) described Wales, in his usual belittling fashion, as the exhaust pipe of the motor of growth. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman, who has not stayed in the Chamber—[ Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He seems to have woken up. Would it not have been better for the hon. Gentleman to describe Wales as a fiery dragon on the bonnet? That is far closer to the reality of the current performance of Wales relative to other European countries.
Unemployment in Wales is lower than the United Kingdom average for the first time since 1924. Is not that good news? Is not that something that the hon. Gentleman should mention so that the people of Wales will be encouraged to build on success?
Since 1979, self-employment in Wales has increased by more than 36,000 to 158,000 people. During the 1980s, Wales gained an average of 1,400 new businesses a year, making a current total of 87,000 businesses. All that we hear from Opposition Members is about jobs lost. We do not hear about the jobs that have been created or that the number of employees in manufacturing has increased by 5 per cent. since 1986. We do not hear from them that manufacturing output is up by more than 25 per cent. since 1985. We do not hear from them that there are 800 new manufacturing plants in Wales since 1980, providing more than 50,000 new jobs, and we certainly do not hear from them about the 1,100 inward investment projects that have been created since 1983. Let us have an end to their doom and gloom and let us start fighting for Wales.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I, too, congratulate Plaid Cymru on choosing this subject for debate. It gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss some serious points affecting the future of Wales. I intend to make more of a plea than an attack because, first, I believe the new Secretary of State to be a serious man who will understand serious points. Secondly, there might be some advantage in the fact that the new Secretary of State was not familiar with Wales. He might be able to take a fresher view of the development of Wales than has hitherto been the case—we shall see, but I shall be optimistic for the purposes of my short speech.
We have heard much about infrastructure. I suggest to the Secretary of State that there are still serious problems with the infrastructure in Wales. There is much development to be done. I share the right hon. Gentleman's aspirations for Wales and his view that Wales should be inventive and that the best designs should come from Wales. Like the Secretary of State, I believe that


Wales has the best possible work force. However, we need to be able to build on the potential of that work force by ensuring that work can get to them and that they can do the work that is available.
If I asked the Secretary of State how much freight is carried across central Wales by rail on the line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, would he know the answer? It is a very easy answer—absolutely zero. Petroleum used to be carried on a weekly train from Stanlow in Cheshire to Aberystwyth. British Rail put up its price by 50 per cent. I do not blame Shell for leaving that line when it faced a 50 per cent. price increase; it was a normal business conclusion that, it should transfer its fuel on to the road. However, the fact that it happened does not show a commitment by the Government to a rail infrastructure for Wales which central Wales deserves.
Indeed, I suggest to the Secretary of State that there is a clear illogicality between the work that has been done by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the fact that the rural railway line that crosses central Wales appears to have been put in deliberate decline by British Rail and is no longer able to offer competitive freight rates.

Mr. Redwood: indicated assent.

Mr. Carlile: I am delighted to see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement.
The Development Board for Rural Wales has done an excellent job over the years within its terms of reference. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State endorse the future of the DBRW when I intervened on him. The DBRW has not had as full terms of reference as it should. Over the years, I have regretted—I have repeatedly made this point in the House—that the DBRW has not been directly involved in agriculture or in tourism. If the DBRVV had been able to build advance hotels, for example, just as it built advance factories, we should have seen a more suitable range of hotels in rural Wales. The development board appreciates the lack of hotels, especially those for people who want to do business in rural Wales, but the board has not been given the opportunity to take the initiatives that it might otherwise have taken in this context.
It is wrong to look at tourism and industrial development as different species. I hope that the Secretary of State shares the view that they are both part of the same effort. I hope that he will regard it as logical to develop the rail infrastructure so that people wishing to go to those hotels when they are built, or those wishing to open research facilities in the great university town of Aberystwyth will be able to use a decent rail route to get there. At present, there is no such route.
I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke. North (Mr. Dafis) about the need to ensure that economic development is sustainable and consistent with an environment which is acceptable to both the people of Wales and the Government's international treaty obligations.
I ask the Secretary of State, especially in his appellate role with regard to planning matters, to ensure that, while the development of non-fossil fuel energy generation is a good thing, we do not face a future in which every hill top throughout Wales will have dozens of windmills on it. That matter is causing great controversy in my constituency and, indeed, in neighbouring constituencies. There is still room for more wind power development—we

have not yet reached saturation point—but I ask the Secretary of State to be conscious of the fact that we may reach saturation point soon and that that must be borne in mind as an aspect of the future of rural Wales.

Mr. Dafis: I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, with only a few wind farms in existence, we are far from reaching saturation point. Does he accept the principle that we should be encouraging the establishment of small-scale wind farms of up to five turbines, which would blend in well with the landscape and make it possible for local companies to be involved in their development?

Mr. Carlile: I suspect that it may be more realistic for developments of wind turbines to be economically based on somewhat larger wind farms than those to which the hon. Gentleman referred. But for the purposes of this point, I emphasise that I care not so much about the size of wind farms as the potential proliferation of them.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has already taken up a lot of time with interventions.
A further point that I wish to make in my short speech relates to the agriculture industry. Agriculture is still the biggest industry in my constituency and, indeed, throughout rural mid and north Wales. But it struggles from crisis to crisis. Prices in the markets are a little higher at present, so the farmers are less pessimistic. However, they take it for granted that there will be another crisis around the corner and they are approaching that corner quickly.
I have already made the point that I should like to see the Development Board for Rural Wales more directly involved in agriculture. The principal reason is that, for farmers living in rural mid and north Wales, diversification is difficult to achieve. There are only so many places where one can make love spoons and sell them to passing trade. There are only some parts of north and mid-Wales where one can grow pick-your-own strawberries, and even that season is short. There are dozens of country hotels and pubs on the market, so the potential for turning a farm into a holiday enterprise is strictly limited.
We need to improve our road communications as well as rail communications to enhance the tourist potential. I ask the Secretary of State to see whether he can bring forward the development of a bypass for Newtown as quickly as possible to ensure that people have quicker access to those parts of Wales where tourism is especially attractive. I am not asking for a motorway. The last thing that we want is a dual carriageway to scar central Wales. We want adequate road communications proportionate to the problem.
Some farmers are in a state, of desperation as they look for ways to diversify into tourism or otherwise. In my constituency, there has been an extremely sad and regrettable increase in suicides among farmers who face potential bankruptcy as the banks see the equity available against their loans diminishing.
I hope that it is music to the ears of the Secretary of State to hear that the answer lies with him and the Welsh Office. They should be leading the fight to begin considering the common agricultural policy all over again.
As I go around farms in my constituency, I wonder whether the present system of delivering grants and subsidies, many of which are substantially defrauded—not in Wales, but in other countries—is the best way in which to sustain farming. I hope that, as Lady Thatcher has said on many occasions, the Government will encourage the expansion of the European Community to include countries in central and eastern Europe, those formerly in the Soviet bloc, and countries such as Romania, which I visited in the past week, and to give them a share of Europe's development. That may give us the opportunity to start with a clean sheet of paper for a new agricultural policy that could benefit Wales.
I am fast coming to the conclusion that we could bring the price of food down and make contracts with farmers that would mean that, at the worst, farmers would not be worse off, and would mean that the housewife or the man who buys the weekly groceries would pay less for them. I see the future of a prosperous agriculture in Wales as one based on contracts with the farmer to produce the food needed and to sustain the environment that we love, not the situation in which we flounder between subsidies, arguing year after year about small changes up or down.
I have raised three principal points about which I feel strongly. They are all worth considering as one tries to take a bird's eye view of the economic future of Wales. There are many other issues I would like to raise but there is not time. If we hear the Secretary of State or the Minister saying something positive in response about those three issues, I shall feel encouraged.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I shall follow my neighbour from Powys, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) by reacting to a couple of the points that he mentioned. He urged the Secretary of State to seek to take some role in the planning process of wind farming development. On the contrary, local democracy should decide where wind farms are placed and I applaud my right hon. Friend's predecessor for deciding that the decision in Radnorshire should be made locally.
I endorse much of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and about the strong role of the development board throughout my area and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). If I have a criticism of the development board, it is that it is rather more active in the hon. Gentleman's constituency than it is in mine, but I hope to work on that in the years ahead.
One change I urge my right hon. Friend to make is in the role of inward investment, which is rightly highlighted by Conservative Members. At present, inward investment goes primarily to north and to south Wales, not only because of the population, but because the WDA is the agency bringing in international investment. Although the WDA brings in investment on behalf of the DBRW, the board ought to have had more of a role in international consultation and in developing inward investment.
My next observation is important in the context of this debate. Conservative Members are sometimes criticised for being too positive by Opposition Members who adopt

too gloomy a view. The motion has been tabled by Plaid Cymru. Recently, we had a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee. Since the debate took place, unemployment in the constituencies of Plaid Cymru Members has dropped by 2,331. I am sorry that they have not found time to mention that in this debate.
Today is the day that David Kerns, the chief economist of NatWest, says that we may see very much stronger employment growth in Wales than in any other region of the United Kingdom. We might have waited too long to hear that news from the Opposition. Yet again, it has had to be said by Conservative Members.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones(Ynys Môn): As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, this debate is opportune. It has been an excellent debate because it has given hon. Members from Wales and from outside an opportunity to discuss the important issue of regional development. In the time allotted to me, I shall not be able to refer to all the contributions. However, there are two points to which I wish to respond.
First, the Secretary of State said that we in Wales must be ready to recognise that good ideas sometimes come from outside Wales. Let me put the Secretary of State right. We accept that point. Over all the generations, the Welsh people have accepted influences from outside. In the great tradition of Welsh culture and language, we have always accepted outside influences and have assimilated them.

Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I said that the European Community, when framing technology principles and policies, should understand that point. It was not a criticism of Wales; it was a specific remark about high-definition television.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for correcting my impression.
Secondly, I shall respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). He said that he was surprised that my party wanted to discuss issues of regional development and he posed the question of where the money would come from. Increasingly, the money is coming from the European Community. The problem is that if the hon. Gentleman had had his way and the House had voted against the Maastricht treaty, Wales would have been cut off from a valuable source of investment and resources.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has made a number of interventions. Indeed, he has almost made a speech through interventions.
We believed when we set the topic for tonight's debate that it would be an important and timely debate. It is an important debate because of the European Community's recognition of the fact that countries such as Wales need assistance if they are to compete against the Community's core areas. The problem with the contribution by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who unfortunately is not in his place, is that the Community recognises the fact that Wales is a peripheral nation. That is why the structural funds, which are currently being reconsidered, recognise the need to reduce that peripherality. It is


because the European Community recognises that that we want to put the Secretary of State on the spot by asking him whether he agrees with that analysis.
The debate is also timely because the Commission is currently considering the plans of the Department of Trade and Industry—not the plans of the Welsh Office—to ditch parts of Wales from assisted area status and to replace them with areas in the south-east of England. During Welsh Question Time, I referred briefly to an article in The Sunday Times on 20 June. The article says:
Brussels officials studying the proposals"—
the proposals submitted by the DTI—
said yesterday they did not believe any area south of Birmingham should qualify for aid: 'I can see little reason that the British government should include any southern region, even if they have been particularly touched by the recession,' said one Brussels source. A spokesman for Karel van Miert, the Belgian EC commissioner responsible for competition policy, said: 'We feel the money should be concentrated in areas of maximum need. We want the weaker regions to get the money to enable them to move up to the national average. If they finish up getting less, the aid scheme is no longer viable.'''
Can the Secretary of State for Wales tell us who speaks for Wales? Is it the European Commissioner, the Welsh Office or the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Richards: It is not the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jones: I can only say, in reply to that interruption, that we are making the strongest possible argument that it is not the Welsh Office.
What does the Commissioner mean when he says that he wants the weaker regions to get the money so that they may be enabled to move up to the national average? He means that the money that is earmarked for regional development should go to those areas whose economies have traditionally been weak and have needed support. I do not subscribe to the view that an economy can be improved only by pumping public money into it. I accept the analysis that there must be a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. However, I do not accept that parts of Wales should be ditched as the Department of Trade and Industry tries to save some Tory skins in the south-east of England.
This is also a very important debate because it puts into sharp focus the need for the Welsh Office to speak in the Cabinet for Wales. Will the DTI succeed on this occasion'? The Secretary of State has told us that it will. He has said that, on the basis of unemployment rates in Wales, half of the assisted area status would be lost. Even if it were less than half, Wales would still lose. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that no part of Wales will lose assisted area status? I am afraid that he is not prepared to give such an assurance. Brussels is sending the map back to be redrawn. We believe that this is an opportunity for the new Secretary of State to tell us where he stands on the issue. May we expect a response from his hon. Friend who will wind up?
This is also an important debate because the Secretary of State could have told us whether he is personally committed to regional development. Does he support the notion that, owing to the disadvantages of location and infrastructure, areas must be given assistance to compete? If he believes that that is so, and if he rejects the notion that the market can deliver everything—the notion with which he came to the House in 1987—he has moved substantially along the road to the position taken up by his predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion

and Pembroke, North highlighted the problem: if the marketplace, and the marketplace only, were to determine where industry should go, the social and cultural upheaval in Wales would be enormous, and the result would be catastrophic. To succeed, Wales has always relied on a partnership between the private sector and the public sector. We want to see that continue.
The Secretary of State said something like, "If only Opposition Members would spend time talking to business people …" But we do spend time talking to business people.
Before he came to this place my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) spent his life in industry. We speak to industrialists in our constituencies and we understand the problems of industry in Wales. The Secretary of State should recognise that.
We gave the Government a test and they have failed it. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State chided the Labour party's spokesman for laughing, but now the right hon. Gentleman is laughing. He must listen to what hon. Members have to say. First, the Secretary of State failed to reassure us about his commitment to regional development. He failed to give guarantees about assisted area status and he failed to persuade us that the Welsh Office speaks for Wales in the Cabinet when it is faced with a challenge from the DTI. That is why we have no alternative but to challenge the Secretary of State in the Lobby.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Inevitably, debates on Welsh affairs follow the traditional pattern. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said last week, the Government side has been winning and the Opposition side has been whingeing, not least by way of the speech by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). Where failure is, failure sits—on the Opposition Benches.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), who started with the usual cheap shots about my right hon. Friend. I suppose that I could congratulate him, because for once he outdid the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who concentrated instead on doom and gloom. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North wanted to play down the successess that even he had to admit have taken place under the Government. The hon. Gentleman said, "That is not to whinge," and that shows that the point has struck home. But that was exactly what he did throughout his speech.
The hon. Gentleman spoke twice about the significance of any closure or rundown of military establishments in Wales. That is in contrast to his apiration for an autonomous nation of Wales. If that came about, he would make sure that all military bases were closed without any regard for the consequences for the people of Wales.
His protestations are totally hollow. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with a wide range of positive and practical measures for the economic development of Wales. That is in stark contrast to the position in Wales in 1979, when it was not just dependent but dangerously over-dependent on a handful of basic industries that were rapidly declining. It had a legacy of


problems that were not addressed but deferred; that was confirmed by the past-tense remarks by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
In Wales, we have a range of different programmes underlying the economic measures that we have consistently'and successfully pursued for 14 years. We do not propose to abandon them. My right hon. Friend's speech should have left hon. Members in no doubt that we are continually seeking to improve and adapt our programmes to meet the needs of the 1990s and beyond. Our objectives are clear: we want to broaden our recovery, widen our industrial base and build on our strengths in Wales.
I welcomed the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who endorsed exactly what we have been doing by asking that more of the same should be done in his area. It is remarkable that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West belatedly welcomed the announcement of new jobs for Crumlin. He is a week late, and he kept his remarks to the singular.
I remind the House that, in the past week, there have been 1,000 new jobs for ASAT, 480 for Aiwa, a possible 1,000 for British Coal Enterprise, 240 from six companies announcing expansion plans, 58 for Addis in Swansea, and another 160 are on the threshold of being announced. With the exception of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who made a remarkable admission, no Opposition Member welcomed any of those announcements.
I should record another positive contribution—from the right hon. Member for Llanelli, who suggested that more should be done to encourage sub-contracting in the motoring industry. I reflected on this when my right hon. Friend was talking about his vision and goal that Wales should lead in new products, quality goods and be at the cutting edge of innovation. But what did we hear from the hon. Member for Newport. West (Mr. Flynn)? He dismissed that goal as fantasy. He does not care.

Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: Many hon. Members referred to the reveiw of assisted area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye—

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The subject of this debate is assisted area status for Wales. I have listened very carefully to the Minister, but he has not mentioned it from the word go.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that is not a valid point of order.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening, because I had begun to talk about the assisted area review.
I was reminding the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) has stated a plain and good case for assisted area status for her constituency in the south-east of England. I am sure that she will understand why I cannot respond specifically to her case, but I know full well that the representations she has made will be given the fullest consideration. I acknowledge her point about inviting Commissioner van Miert to visit the south-east of England.
At least my hon. Friend spoke positively about the need for extending assisted area status, unlike the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, who radiated gloom and doom in predicting that damage would be forthcoming for Wales.
The Government's proposals were submitted to the European Commission 15 June. The Commission's initial criteria are based on local unemployment rates over recent years, compared to national and EC averages. The Commission will also be concerned with the overall coverage of any new map, compared with similar coverages in other member states.
Our proposals for the new assisted areas map are based on a balance of all the factors—for example, unemployment, urban problems and, as Opposition Members have requested, activity levels. We hope that the Commission will feel able to approve it. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn asked me to respond to that point, but it has been covered by what my right hon. Friend said earlier. We have sought the right deal for Wales.
The only issue now is the Commission's proposals. We cannot anticipate how long it will take it to complete its consideration. In order not to prejudice negotiations with the Commission, and to avoid uncertainty, no information on the proposed map will be made available until EC approval has been received. We must await EC clearance, but we are aware of the difficulties caused by continuing uncertainty, and we hope to make the announcement before the summer recess.
As with earlier assisted area maps, measures of employment were the main criterion, although other factors were taken into account. While the exercise cannot be wholly statistical, we shall ensure that decisions are fair and consistent. There will continue to be two tiers of support—development areas and intermediate areas—and the travel-to-work areas will continue to be the main area unit. Once the announcement is made, the Government will set out clearly the basis for our decisions.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West dwelt on his disappointment that unemployment has fallen and continues to fall. He dragged in the red herring that people were being made to go on sickness benefit instead of the uemployment register. He then accused us of trying to push people off the sickness register. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
I contrast his remarks with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney), who spoke of the success in the reduction of unemployment figures. Unemployment in Wales is less than the national average. He rightly said that that good news should be acknowledged.
In a telling intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) pointed out that, through our proposals for Cardiff bay, we seek to achieve more than 20,000 new jobs. He referred to the "vicious campaign" of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West against that. Significantly, the hon. Gentleman had no answer to that.
We have had a varied debate. In the short time left for me this evening, I am afraid that it is not possible for me to respond to every point that has been made. Opposition Members have had their say, but actions speak louder than words. The Government will not be—nor would we wish to be—judged on our rhetoric. We want to be judged on our performance.
We now have the lowest inflation for nearly 30 years, the lowest interest rates for 15 years, the fastest growth of


manufacturing productivity for more than six years, the best performance on unit wage costs in manufacturing and high business confidence, particularly in Wales. There can be no doubt that Wales is in a position to make the most of recovery and to continue the very real progress that has been made.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 150.

Division No. 309]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Bayley, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Caborn, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Callaghan, Jim
Meale, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michael, Alun


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morgan, Rhodri


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Pike, Peter L.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Rendel, David


Cryer, Bob
Simpson, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Turner, Dennis


Eastham, Ken
Tyler, Paul


Etherington, Bill
Wallace, James


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Golding, Mrs Llin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hanson, David
Worthington, Tony


Harvey, Nick



Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&amp;S)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clappison, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bates, Michael
Day, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Devlin, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger





French, Douglas
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Patnick, Irvine


Gillan, Cheryl
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Richards, Rod


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Riddick, Graham


Hague, William
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Harris, David
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hawksley, Warren
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hendry, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Horam, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jack, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stephen, Michael


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


Kilfedder, Sir James
Stewart, Allan


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sumberg, David


Knapman, Roger
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Thomason, Roy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Legg, Barry
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lidington, David
Thurnham, Peter


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacKay, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Waterson, Nigel


Mans, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Marlow, Tony
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Whittingdale, John


Merchant, Piers
Widdecombe, Ann


Milligan, Stephen
Wilkinson, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Willetts, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Needham, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Nelson, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Neubert, Sir Michael



Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Oppenheim, Phillip
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Page, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the Main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the progress that the Welsh economy has made in recent years as a result of the Government's policies; and notes with approval that the Government intends to continue to pursue vigorously these same policies that have brought about this success.

Orders of the Day — Members' Interests

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 326) relating to the registration and declaration of Members' financial interests, provided that the recommendation in paragraph 84 of the Report relating to the declaration of any relevant registered interest at the time of tabling an early day motion shall apply only to the Member in charge of such a motion.
As the House knows, this is the first of two debates this evening arising from reports by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is appropriate that I should begin by paying tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his colleagues on the Committee for their careful consideration of the sensitive issues with which they deal on our behalf.
I probably do not need to remind the House that the impetus for the report arose from an unhappy incident in the previous Parliament, following which there was a widespread view that the rules governing the declaration of interests needed some clarification. That view was echoed by my predecessor in his evidence to the Select Committee in 1991 when he said:
there is still uncertainty among a lot of Members about what should and should not be declared under certain headings …I think it would be a worthwhile thing …to go through the list and actually give Members rather more detailed advice as to what should be declared and what should not.
The Select Committee's subsequent report on registration and declaration was debated by the House last year. The response on that occasion has led the Government to table a motion to give effect to its recommendations, with one modification, so that they can be effective in the establishment of the register for the next Session. The main purposes of the motion, therefore, are to authorise the use of the new registration form that the Committee proposed in its report and to give Members clearer and more explicit guidance as to the matter in which they should register their financial interests.
I will briefly set out the main changes in practice that the report recommends. In many cases—this has perhaps not always been as clear as members of the Committee would have liked—the matters are of clarification rather than completely new provisions. Taking business interests first, a Member who has an association with a company is already required to name it, but he would now be expected to state briefly the nature of the company's business. Most people would think that that is reasonable.
As for shareholdings, the existing rule is that a holding of 1 per cent. issued share value of any company must be declared. That rule would be modified to require the registration of shareholdings with a nominal value of more than £25,000, as well as those that constitute more than 1 per cent. of the issued shared capital of the company.
The new form would also require clearer details about clients of consultancies linked to the work of right hon. and hon. Members in the House. Right hon. and hon. Members must already register any consultancy firms to which they provide advice. The Committee's recommendation is that, in future, right hon. and hon. Members should not only register any consultancy firm to which they provide advice but list any of the firm's clients to

which the right hon. or hon. Member personally provides any services. That, too, is more a matter of explicit clarification than of innovation, because I understand that at present the registrar advises right hon. and hon. Members who ask that they should register the names of clients on whose account they have worked.
The report recommends that membership of Lloyd's should be more clearly described. Ever since the register was established, right hon. and hon. Members have always been advised to register their membership of Lloyd's. The Committee now proposes that they should detail the individual syndicates to which they belong. I understand that the Committee's view was that, just as right hon. and hon. Members should register the nature of the business of firms with which they are connected, so too should they register the number of their Lloyd's syndicate—a measure that clarifies the nature of the insurance business with which right hon. and hon. Members are involved.
The report recommends also that the provisions relating to land and property should be clarified. Right hon. and hon. Members would not be required to list their individual holdings, but they would be expected to specify the nature and general location of any property other than—I emphasise this point—any home or second home that has a substantial value or produces a substantial income.
A new provision recommended by the Committee is that gifts in excess of £125, including cash gifts, would need to be registered, as would hospitality, services or benefits in kind greater than 0·5 per cent. of the parliamentary salary, which is currently about £155. Those limits are broadly in line with those for Ministers and would avoid the obvious absurdity of requiring an entry every time that, for example, someone attended a lunch or dinner.
As to the right hon. or hon. Member's relationship with his constituency party—there will be particular interest in this point in many quarters—the report proposes a clearer definition of sponsorship. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden may have something more to say on that. It may help the House if I explain the Government's understanding of that section of the report.
The Committee's proposal on the registration of donations to associations applies only to donations from a company or organisation. It does not apply where the donor is an individual, and I am sure that it is right to maintain the privacy of such donations. Where a donation is made by a company or an organisation, the Committee proposes that it would need to be declared if it exceeded £500 and was made on a regular basis and was not just a one-off or occasional donation, and—perhaps this is particularly important—the donation was linked to an individual right hon. or hon. Member's candidacy or membership of the House, or if the right hon. or hon. Member himself acted as intermediary between the donor organisation and the constituency party.
It is important to note that where a donation is made as an expression of general support for the party, as opposed to support or sponsorship of a particular candidate, it would not need to be declared. As the report states on page 17:
Donations made directly to a constituency party as an expression of general political support, not linked to the Member's candidacy or membership of the House, should not be registered: and similarly it will not be necessary to register a trade union donation to a constituency party which is not linked to the promotion of a particular parliamentary candidate.

Ms Angela Eagle: I speak as a Member of Parliament who was sponsored by the Confederation of Health Service Employees—as it will be for only a couple of days more, because it will be named Unison thereafter—only after selection and election. What is the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the new rules in my particular case, as I was not sponsored through the selection process?

Mr. Newton: Should the motion be agreed tonight, the hon. Lady may wish to obtain the registrar's advice. However, I understand that the hon. Lady would need to declare an interest only if the amount involved exceeded £500 a year and was linked directly to her candidacy or membership of the House. In other words, she would have to do that only if it were an annual sum that amounted to more than £500, which had been given on the basis that it related to her rather than to her constituency Labour party or association.
I am sure that the House will think it right that where an individual Member is receiving what amounts to—this is the case that the hon. Lady put to me—substantial sponsorship from a company or an organisation on a regular basis, sponsorship that is related to his or her candidacy or membership of the House, that should be declared. Equally, where donations are in support of the party itself, whatever their source or size, they would not need to be declared.
None of this affects the existing rules relating to contributions to a Member's election expenses, which are unchanged. Members should continue to register any sponsorship that exceeds 25 per cent. of their election expenses.
There are also some provisions relating to Members' staff.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I own small amounts of property and I have always declared the fact that I own small amounts of property. Why is it relevant whether the property is in Lewisham or not?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir. G. Johnson Smith) may wish to comment on that question. That is the proposal in the Committee's report. I did not feel that it was a sufficiently important point to justify a special departure from an all-party agreed report that has put these recommendations before the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister answer a, simple question that we argued long about in our Committee proceedings? Why should a Labour Member of Parliament sponsored by a trade union, who is under no particular pressure from that union—[Interruption.] That is the case. We are talking about £600 per annum. Let us move into the real world. The fact is that £600 a year is a very small amount of money. [ Interruption.] I agree that over five years, it amounts to £3,000.
Why should a Labour Member of Parliament be required to register and declare that sum of money, while a Scottish Member of Parliament who received £10,000 from a property developer in Scotland—hon. Members know about it because it is in the report, and the House may wish to comment on it tonight—is not required to declare that sum? That hon. Gentleman did nothing wrong. He is a perfectly honourable Member of this House, but his constituency party received £10,000 in a

12-month period. I want to know why he does not have to declare it, while a trade union-sponsored Member who gets £600 has to declare it.

Mr. Newton: It seems to me that the issue is whether that constitutes the regular annual sponsorship of a particular individual. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee that produced this agreed report. It is open to him to advance the reasons for a different set of recommendations during the speech that he will no doubt seek to make, if he is successful in catching your eye, Madam Speaker. However, I am setting before the House as clearly as I can the recommendations that are contained in the report.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask another question?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may make one point before I give way again to the hon. Gentleman. As I have just said, the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in the matter is well known, was a member of the Committee, and he has pressed me to put its recommendations before the House. It would be more appropriate, I believe, for him to develop the arguments in favour of his alternative report to the one that he signed in a speech, rather than by putting points to me in this way. However, I do not want to prevent him from doing so, if he wishes. Therefore I shall give way to him again.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the difference between a trade union-sponsored Member of Parliament who receives £600 a year for his constituency party and a Conservative Member of Parliament who receives £600 a year from the local industrial council? Is there more pressure on a Labour Member than on a Conservative Member? We know that it goes on.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden may wish to elaborate on the point, but I understand that the Committee was quite reasonably seeking a definition of regular annual sponsorship related specifically to a candidate or Member rather than to the constituency Labour party, a Conservative association or, for that matter, a Liberal association. That was a reasonable distinction to seek to draw; but if the hon. Gentleman thinks differently, he will no doubt elaborate on his reasons in the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have been sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers for 23 years and have been a member of it for 44 years. It is proper for Members of Parliament to declare in the register that they are sponsored by a specific union. It is important to do that. Those of us who are sponsored in this fashion are happy to let it be known, and anyway I do not take all that much notice of the union's decisions. For instance, the year before last, it was in favour of proportional representation. I said, "I am not supporting that and, what is more, I will change the union's view." I campaigned in the union to get it back on the straight and narrow—first past the post—which the executive agreed by 13 votes to three. It was a great campaign. I am quite happy to do that, but if Tories are getting money from businesses, the amount of money should appear in the register, because then it is quid pro quo.

Mr. Newton: I am rather more glad than usual that the hon. Gentleman's advocacy of a proposition was


successful. It is entirely open to him to advance that point of view. I do not agree with it and it was not what the Committee recommended.

Mr. Skinner: What, first past the post?

Mr. Newton: No, I am talking now about the hon. Gentleman's subsequent remarks.
That was not what the Committee recommended. It is not what I am proposing and I do not think that the argument holds. If the union chooses to give money to Bolsover Labour party, I do not see why it should have to declare it any more than the report would require. If it is specifically related to the candidacy of the hon. Gentleman or his membership of the House, that is a different matter. That, as I understand it, is the distinction that the Select Committee was seeking to draw.
The report proposes that visits and benefits provided for Members' staff should now have to be registered. I had some reservations about this proposal and whether it was really worth the effort involved, so my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden arranged to consult the relevant staff associations, neither of which, although he may wish to elaborate on this, has raised any objection. Holders of permanent passes as Members' secretaries or research assistants will have to register visits, gifts or benefits on the same basis as Members.
The report proposes some administrative changes. The Select Committee would be authorised to make minor—I must emphasise "minor"—modifications to the rules, such as to improve ambiguities or to bring financial limits up to date, without the need for further recourse to the House. The scope of such changes would be strictly limited, which I am sure the House will think right. The last sentence of paragraph 66 of the report states:
other changes—and particularly any which involve a major alteration of the categories or definitions of registerable interests—will of course still require approval by the House.
After a general election, Members would be given more time in which to complete the registration form. At present, they are allowed four weeks; in future, they will have three months.
I draw to the attention of the House one issue on which the Government propose a slight change to what the Committee recommended in its report. Following an earlier recommendation by the 1974–75 Committee, which was chaired by Mr. Fred Willey, the Committee recommended that the sponsor and the first five supporters of an early-day motion, or an amendment to an early-day motion, should be required to declare any relevant registered interest verbally or in writing to the Table Office at the time of tabling. When the motion appeared on the notice paper, a symbol would be printed by the hon. Member's name to signal that an interest had been declared.
I do not need to tell the House that the number of early-day motions has been growing significantly. I think that I am right in saying that, when I first entered the House just under 20 years ago, there were probably 500 a year. I know from business questions on Thursdays that there have been well over 2,000 in the present Session, and the flow shows little sign of stopping. Every day, the Table Office has to deal with several hundred added names—sometimes more than 1,000—most of which arrive in the post. The recommendation, if it covered all the names

suggested in the report, would therefore place a large additional burden of work on the Table Office and would divert the Clerks from the task of dealing with questions and offering advice to hon. Members, which I think the House would regard as more important.
A further specific problem to illustrate the type of difficulty that could arise is that it might not be possible to tell hon. Members reliably whether their signature would be among the first six, as new signatures might already have been handed in which had not yet appeared on the computer. My advice to the House is that the main thrust of the Committee's recommendation can he achieved with an acceptable amount of extra work if the requirement is limited to the sponsor of the motion. That is the purpose of the Government's motion.
I acknowledge that it could be argued that someone could circumvent the provision by getting someone else to table the motion in his or her name, but it would not be much more difficult to get six other people to table the motion and then to add one's name as the seventh. The practical gain would therefore be limited in following the Committee's recommendation as distinct from that suggested in the Government motion.
Subject to the approval of the House, I understand that Madam Speaker has authorised the application of this procedure in relation to early-day motions—or acknowledgement of interests in respect of the first name—from the start of the new Session.
As I said in response to an intervention, some people will no doubt have reservations about one or more of the report's recommendations, and in both directions—some will have wanted it to go further and some perhaps not quite as far. However, the report has been produced by an all-party Committee and was generally agreed, although there were arguments on one or two points. The Committee was chaired by a senior and respected Conservative Member. I believe that the House would be right to accept these useful improvements in our system of registration and declaration—

Sir Roger Moate: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend. On that very point, if one does have reservations—one can discern possible matters about which one might have some, despite the general acceptance of the report—is it right to approve the report in full, bearing in mind that it is often the small points that give rise to problems of interpretation? When my right hon. Friend answered the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), he admitted to having a reservation himself. Is it right that we should give carte blanche approval, without further examination, to a report of considerable significance? Would it not be better to hear the views of the House and decide whether some of the points—

Madam Deputy Speaker(Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that interventions should be short.

Mr. Newton: I shall make two points. First, we debated this issue a little less than a year ago in order to asses the House's general reaction. It would be fair to say that reasonable support was expressed. Secondly, I do not think that I expressed a particular reservation in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) but said that, if it were a matter of explaining the Committee's thinking, it seemed more


appropriate that it should he done by the Chairman of the Committee rather than by my attempting to interpret what was in the Committee's mind.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the report was compiled not on the initiative of Selective Committee, but in response to a request from the House following a debate about a former hon. Member who had complained about difficulties? The general view expressed by the House, through a vote on a motion, was that the Committee should clarify the rules. This report is a response to that request.

Mr. Newton: Yes, I adverted to that at the outset of my speech.
Clearly, several hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) sensed that I was trying to bring my—I hope reasonably brief—remarks to an end. The improvements to our system of registration and declarations are useful; they will remove some of the dilemmas that hon. Members have faced as a result of the lack of clarity in certain respects. I hope that the House will support their implementation tonight. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I am pleased to be relieved of the necessity of continually asking the Leader of House, on behalf of my hon. Friends, for this debate. We are pleased to have tonight's debate and to deal with the matter before us.
We are particularly pleased because the initial move to set up a register, as the Leader of the House recognised, was made under a Labour Government in 1974. There were then two parts to the resolution. According to the first part of that resolution, the declaration of Members' interests should be made a rule rather than a convention. The second part of the resolution set up the register itself so that hon. Members could assess any pecuniary interest or other material benefit which might be thought to affect the conduct of Members or the influence that they might exert.
I wish first to refer to the emphasis in the initial report, and the emphasis in this excellent report, on the responsibility on individual Members to ensure that they satisfy the conventions and rules of the register and, if they are in any doubt, to err on the side of including matters in the register rather than leaving them out. As the then Speaker said in evidence to the Select Committee:
Members who hold consultancy and similar positions must ensure that they do not use their positions as members improperly.
I am aware that many hon. Members, quite rightly, want to speak in the debate, so I shall be brief. With regard to the declaration of interest, when the register was first set up, many of the reservations expressed by those who were unhappy about the procedure were along the lines that it would be very important for hon. Members not to think that the register should replace the need for a declaration of interest.
To a certain extent, for all of us, such declarations are subjective impressions. However, it is my impression that declarations of interest are hardly ever made these days. I understand how that has occurred, as there must be an instinctive feeling among many hon. Members that if the

matter is in the Register of Members' Interests, people are free to look it up. Indeed, one often sees hon. Members speedily consulting the register, particularly when debates on contentious matters are taking place.
However, I wonder whether the Select Committee or the House should consider whether there is any way of reminding hon. Members afresh of their duty to make a declaration and that that duty is not extinguished by the existence of the register. For example, I want to declare an interest in that I am proud to be a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. That interest is declared in the register. However, I rarely recall hon. Members making such declarations in the House or in Committee these days. We should consider whether we can improve that situation.
Also, we are seeing a number of changes in public policy and in the assumptions and the conventions of behaviour which reinforce our concern about the register and also the need for hon. Members to consider whether they themselves would wish to make a declaration. If I may take an example from outside this place, increasing concern has been expressed about the way in which civil servants are seen to move—I recognise, of course, with the permission of the Government, with the waiving of the rules—much more directly than has been the case in the past, straight from Departments into private industries with which they frequently were dealing a short time before. That is becoming an issue of growing concern.
Without wishing unduly to upset Conservative Members, I draw attention to the fact that, after a long period in government, people retire as former Ministers. Paragraph 15 of the Select Committee's report refers to the fact that the ministerial rules are so phrased that Ministers are discouraged from using information that they receive as Ministers for private gain, and quite properly.
We all recall well-publicised cases in which hon. Members have gone very speedily—more speedily than would have been expected some years ago—from the Cabinet into private companies and, in some cases, on to the boards of companies over whose privatisation they had presided. There is nervousness and unease in the House about those matters, which. makes it all the more important that we should be vigilant and try to get the balance right.
It is right—this theme runs through the report, and some hon. Members may have doubts about it—that such issues should remain largely in the control of hon. Members. That is my own point of view because, when we are dealing with such issues, we are conscious of the degree to which our common experience might make hon. Members share a view which might not be so widely held outside. That is natural among any group of individuals who have some common experience and who have, therefore, to some extent shared perceptions and understanding of the nature of the work and its pressures.
I am reminded, for example, of a letter that I received the other day from someone who is not a constituent of mine, mentioning an issue for me to raise because it was a matter of great concern to that individual. I wrote back as courteously as I could explaining that, as the matter involved neither a constituent nor an issue which came within my own domain, I did not feel able to take up the campaign. I explained that all hon. Members receive requests and pressures to take up certain issues and


campaigns which they are simply unable to meet, physically or in any other way, and that everybody has to make choices.
I was slightly dismayed to receive a prompt reply saying, "I had no idea that Members of Parliament could choose whaf aspects of their work they wished to pursue. I am delighted to hear that. I will now renew my pressure on everybody to whom I have written and say that they must take up this campaign." Every hon. Member is conscious that such correspondence is received almost daily and that it is literally impossible for any hon. Member to take up all the issues and raise all the campaigns that some people outside this place wish us to take up.
For such reasons it is right that these matters should remain within the control of the House. However, while they remain within the control of the House and of hon. Members, it is all the more essential that it is seen that that control is not being misused and that we are vigilant about the standards that we apply. Otherwise it will be difficult to justify keeping the matter within the hands of hon. Members primarily.
It is sensible—to some extent it might be an answer to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)—that paragraph 66 of the Select Committee report suggests that it should be within the remit of the Select Committee to make minor modifications. That paragraph refers to the need to make minor modifications to the guidance in order to remove ambiguities as well as to deal with altering the financial limits without it being necessary to come back to the Floor of the House for full authorisation. That seems a sensible proposal, as is the idea of the pamphlet which might provide one route for highlighting the issue of an hon. Member's declaration, although I think that perhaps it might be better to look for a stronger route.
Having identified some of the issues in the report which I unquestioning and wholeheartedly welcome, there are a couple of issues on which I wish to enter a caveat. The first is the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) in the previous debate on 23 June 1992, to which the Leader of the House referred. Indeed, the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) a moment ago.
I am sure that the Leader of the House was accurate in his reply to my hon. Friend: that the way in which these matters are defined in the report and the considerations of the Select Committee has led to the difference that he identified between someone who got perhaps as little as £100 or £200 a year on a regular basis from a specific organisation where it is regarded as a sponsorship link to that candidate, and someone who might receive substantially larger sums, perhaps not on quite the same basis—either it is not a regular donation, in which case one might imagine that it might come up under the next section headed "gifts" in the register or, alternatively, it is not seen to be linked to the candidacy of an individual but is given as a donation to the political party rather than as a gift to the member. There seems to be a real loophole.
Without wishing to stray into other matters which are outside some of our deliberations tonight, I am reminded that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) suggested that much of the identified moneys

which go to the Conservative party go what he called "locally". How he defined "locally" is not entirely clear. I suspect that "within these shores" might be one of his definitions. However, if that is the case, as he implied—he suggested that perhaps even millions of pounds went to associations locally—that highlights the importance of that area to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin referred in June 1992 and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred tonight. That seems to be one issue which bears further investigation.

Mr. Tim Smith: I think that I can help on that last point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) told the Select Committee that, out of a total income of £26 million last year, £18 million was raised by local Conservative associations and only £8 million by Conservative central office centrally. That was the point—"local" meant local Conservative associations.

Mrs. Beckett: That is a helpful intervention from the hon. Gentleman, both in clarifying the point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and in making precisely the point to which I have just referred. If it is the case that sums of such magnitude are being given in a way which apparently does not come within the purview of the register as it has been described, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is made in spades.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The figures that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) quoted are fascinating because when I wrote a paper on this issue for the Committee at no stage could I establish the figure. We are talking about large sums of money paid at a local level to constituency associations on a regular basis—payments of £500, £600, £700, £800, £900 or £1,000 a year are often made. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why do we not see the accounts to establish that?

Mr. Tim Smith: They are published.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, they are not. If the accounts are published, I can ask the hon. Gentleman, can I?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): You can see the accounts of Grantham conservative association at any time, if you want.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman up on that offer. I hope that that will be recorded in Hansard.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have general conversations.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish to dwell on this any further, although I suspect that other hon. Members will do so on other occasions. If it is the case that £18 million was raised among some 650 associations, that seems to be a substantial interest which does not appear in any way to be covered by the register as it stands at present or, indeed, by the proposals before us tonight.
The second issue that I raise is the more general issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in the Select Committee. The issue was whether the amounts that individual Members raised, rather than the fact that they received a pecuniary


or other reward, should be quantified either as a sum or as a band. I am aware that there was discussion HI the Committee and a vote, and that the proposal was defeated on two grounds. One ground was the general issue of individual privacy and the second was the ground that what might be a significant sum to one Member, because of his financial circumstances, might be of less significance to another Member in different circumstances.
Although I can follow that argument, I point out that if a donation or gift of £10,000 or £25,000 is of no consequence to an hon. Member because his wealth is so great, the likelihood is that the sum would show up in the register because the hon. Member would list the other interests and concerns that had made such an amount pale into insignificance, in his terms. So the argument does not stand up in general terms
We should consider putting the matter in the public domain, perhaps through a band within a certain range.
Such donations should not be excluded. I suspect that the Select Committee will have to return to the matter in the future, just as some of the issues contained in the report that we are discussing tonight are issues with which the Select Committee previously thought that it did not need to deal, but which it has over time come to realise are necessary.
The issue of strengthening the register is important. The Leader of the House referred to the information coming from the register which exists for members of staff, such as researchers. That, too, is the right step. The Opposition take the view strongly that, although we all want to respect the proper privacy of hon. Members, on the other hand we are all working within the public domain and owe to the public their right of scrutiny and their right to information which should properly be available to them.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for moving the motion, with a minor modification, and for his general support. That was appreciated by all members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I also express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for giving a broad welcome to the report, although with certain more substantial differences of opinion.
For the benefit of some new Members whom I see here tonight, I should say that we all recognise that having to register and to ensure that we have got it right is a tedious operation for some. We always feel that, if we have not got it right, we may be the subject of a complaint. There is also the feeling that it is something that we have to do because if we do not, some people might think that we are corrupt.
I remind the House that when we agreed to introduce the register in 1974–75, we did not do so because we believed that there was corruption in the House. I believe that compared with any other Parliament or democratic assembly in the world, we are the least corrupt. We agreed to the introduction of the register because we believed in the need for openness and for transparency in a representative democracy. The point that has been made on other occasions—I do not apologise for making it again—is that in the absence of openness, rumour and innuendo can flourish, especially in the media. I leave it at that.
It is not a pleasant task to look into complaints. We do not relish it at all. The House asked us to see how the duties of Members, under the regulations laid down, could be made clearer. That was the sole purpose of the exercise.
Other matters had to be considered, of course. When there is some ambiguity, there is bound to be inconsistency in the way in which Members declare their interests. Making things more explicit was therefore another objective.
As I have dealt with this matter at greater length on a previous occasion, I do not want to labour the point. I do not want to weary the House by going over ground that was covered a little more than a year ago. Nor do I want to duplicate the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. However, I must emphasise that when we embarked on this exercise none of us thought that we would burst upon the House of Commons with a report setting out a whole lot of new and draconian rules. The objective is to make the existing rules clearer and more specific and to try to establish as the standard the current best practice in registering financial interests.
We realise that some hon. Members would like to go further. The right hon. Member for Derby, South referred to one very important division in the Committee and, I expect, in the House as a whole. That division concerns whether we ought to recommend recording the actual amounts of remuneration deriving from outside interests. This is a delicate issue. It may not go away, but we have tried to proceed on the basis of consent. I very much appreciate the fact that, during my years as its Chairman, the Committee has been able to proceed with reasonable unanimity, helpfulness and co-operation across the often rather large gulf between us.
I want to emphasise that the report was debated last year. It has been on the Table. I am grateful that it has now

come before the House for debate, but I should be even more grateful had it come sooner. Hon. Members have had time to consider what changes, if any, should be made in it. I wish that the Committee's recommendation about early-day motions could be accepted, but I appreciate the practical considerations that the Leader of the House has mentioned, and I should not want this comparatively minor point to be an obstacle to progress on the report's central proposals. The last thing we want to do is introduce some cumbersome bureaucracy.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was totally satisfied with the reasons for registering a property in Lewisham. We found that there were often generic entries, such as ownership of a farm. Some hon. Members have registered properties that are apparently their private residencies, although that is not required. In the report, my hon. Friend will find these words:
We accept that it would be unduly burdensome to require Members to list all their individual land and property holdings in minute detail. This would, moreover, breach the principle of reasonable privacy, to which we attach importance. But we do consider that more uniformity of practice is desirable and that entries should be reasonably specific as to the nature of the property and its general location. For example, 'Woodland in Perthshire' or 'Six lock-up rental garages in Lewisham, SE London'''.
We thought that that would be a perfectly acceptable form of entry.

Mr. Marlow: Why does my hon. Friend think that it is useful to know that the garages are in Lewisham rather than Lambeth?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not think that I would go so far as to say that. Anyone with a hang-up about the geographical location could discuss it with the registrar. I do not see that, for these purposes, there is any difference between garages in Lambeth and garages in Lewisham.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Or London.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Or London.
The little extra information enables us to judge the extent to which, for example, a farm is a smallholding in a rough area, such as the one I represent, with poor land and clay, as opposed to some of the lush pastures of the exquisite farmland in Perthshire. That is what we are trying to elicit from hon. Members who register under this heading.
I should like to outline the next steps, assuming that the motion is accepted. The next printed edition of the register is to be published early next year. It is customary for the registrar to circulate all hon. Members some weeks before the register is reprinted to remind them of the need to update their entries. Without that annual reminder, it is amazing how forgetful we can be. That circulation, probably in November, will be the obvious occasion on which to send out the new registration form for the first time. Because the new form differs from the old one in some material respects, it will be necessary for hon. Members to return the completed form, just as they did after the general election, and not merely to amend their existing entries.
In accordance with paragraphs 68 and 70 of the report, the registrar will also be drawing up an explanatory leaflet to assist hon. Members in completing the new forms. That is important. The leaflet will need to be examined by the Select Committee, but it should be ready for circulation at


the same time as the new form. After the first register the new rules will be published in January, following which the process of amendment and updating by letter to the registrar will continue in the same way as now.
I recognise—there must be some humility about this—that although we believe that the rules are an improvement on the existing ones, and are more detailed and specific they still require judgment and interpretation when applied to particular circumstances. It is the role of the registrar, a senior official of the House, to advise on matters of interpretation in the first instance. Everything said to him is treated in confidence. He can call on the assistance of the Select Committee if he encounters a problem that he is unable to settle on his own authority.
Paragraph 66 of the report gives the Committee the authority to make minor modifications. That is no thin end of the wedge but an attempt to deal with any wording of the rules that still results in some ambiguity. Such matters can come to light only when the rules are tested in practice. If it becomes apparent that the revised provisions have consequences that were not intended when the Committee agreed the report, there is machinery for putting matters right.
There never seems to be a time to consider these matters in a calm and objective fashion. Much of the exchanges about the funding of parties had nothing to do with members of the Committee who were not concerned with that wider question that has attracted so much attention over the past week or so. In dealing with the serious business of how far we can he open with the public to avoid innuendo and criticism, I have been greatly impressed by the painstaking way in which hon. Members have risen to their obligations. As I have said, I greatly appreciate the help that I have been given over the years by hon. Members from all parties who formed the Committee. I hope that the House will approach the debate in the same spirit and approve the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We are debating the development of registration, which is a requirement on all hon. Members. The background is not simply that a Labour Government put that into effect, because in the early 1970s, and certainly when I was first elected, the general view was that this place did not need a register and that everybody knew the wrong 'uns. When I suggested a register, I was told by a Labour Member, "We don't need a register. We know all the wrong 'uns in here, old boy, and we can pick them out."
The set of circumstances that produced the register were precipitated by a man called Poulson, a corrupt architect, who corrupted Members of Parliament, a senior civil servant and a varying number of councillors of all political persuasions. Because of the tide of criticism of people in public office, and because the wash swept over a large proportion of hon. Members who had behaved perfectly properly and with complete integrity but who were stained by the Poulson corruption, the House, following the report of Justice Salmond on "Standards of Conduct in Public Life", established the register. The truth was that, even if the House knew "wrong uns", there was little that it could do or wished to do at that time.
The register has been a source of information and rightly so. Since its establishment, the House has set

standards of conduct for local authority councillors. It is now a criminal offence for councillors to fail to declare a financial interest. The standards of conduct for councillors are much tighter than those for hon. Members. If any Member thinks that the new rules represent an additional burden, he should bear in mind the fact that the House requires much higher and tighter standards from councillors. Should they breach the rules, they are also subject to criminal penalties.
Councillors with a financial interest are also required not to take part in various committee and council decisions. A councillor who is a council tenant requires special approval from the Department of the Environment to take part in any discussion of proposed rent changes.
It is also worth noting that the House sets the standard of conduct for people outside. We determine through delegated powers given to Ministers, and approved in orders passed by the House, the information provided by and standard of conduct expected from the poorest people in the land—those who are on income support. We do not allow them not to declare any bit of capital that they may have or any other income. That must he declared. It would be hypocritical if the House did not accept the need for better, clearer rules—which it has requested—on Members' interests, if, at the same time, it imposed draconian rules on people who are seeking relatively tiny amounts of money. They are certainly tiny in contrast to Members' salaries.
We are in receipt of taxpayers' money, and our salaries are better than those of most of our constituents. If people outside, who put us here, want to know about the influences that shape our voting and, in particular, any financial influences that may shape our voting, we should accept their request. That is part of the process of democratic accountability.
Although the report does not go far enough, it is a step in the right direction, and I support its general terms. On page xxxv, I proposed that the amount of money that hon. Members receive should be disclosed. The report does not require that, however, which is unsatisfactory. There is a marked difference between an hon. Member receiving 150 quid from the Women's Institute towards the cost of secretarial work, because that Member is interested in representing its case in Parliament, and someone who receives between £10,000 and £20,000 in personal income from an outside organisation. That should be known.
The disclosure of such information is not an intrusion on Members' privacy. If we receive money as Members of Parliament, in pursuance of our duties, people outside should know about it. That might stop Members from voting on a issue in which they have a direct, pecuniary interest, as defined in "Erskine May". If they were to vote with a direct pecuniary interest, the vote might be invalidated.
The declaration of the amount of income that Members receive would be a safeguard against their foolishness. That happened recently when the Select Committee on Member's Interests examined a complaint about the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who felt that he did not have to declare his part-payment of legal expenses to get rid of Miss Whiplash, because it was anonymous. The Committee was unanimous in the view that anonymous donations can be more dangerous than known donations.
What if, for example, Asil Nadir were one of the principal anonymous contributors who then turned up, two years later, on the steps of No. 11, knocking on the


door and saying, "And by the way, Norm. Do you know that I made a major contribution and would like some little tax concessions in return."? That is a dangerous position for anyone to get themselves into, but it can happen without Members thinking too much about it, as clearly happened on that occasion.
The declaration of the amount of money would therefore have been a safeguard and a benefit to Members, not a handicap. After all, some Members would positively like to boast of the money they receive from outside, so why should they not register it? However, the Committee has decided against that. There was a vote, and my proposition was defeated. That does not mean that I am against the report. I am disappointed, but I merely point out to those Members who think that this will be an additional onerous burden that, although the report does not satisfy me, I am prepared to compromise.
There are improvements. For example, clients must be listed if Members of Parliament are employed by an outside organisation dealing with specific clients. That used to be the case. Clients were nearly always listed in the register, but it simply fell into desuetude, to use a good Church of England phrase, and people simply did not bother. That can lead people into all sorts of traps and difficulties, as we have recently witnessed. People should have to declare the clients for whom they are providing a service. That is incorporated in the report, and represents an improvement.
Membership of Lloyd's syndicates was discussed by the Committee. A member of Lloyd's on the Committee did not like the view but did not take part in the voting, quite properly, and retained a neutral position. The Committee approved that the membership of a syndicate should be included. If Lloyd's were not a scandal-rocked institution these days, with Conservatives standing up in the House and making accusations about certain syndicates, it would probably never have been required to be incorporated. But it is a safeguard for Members against future accusations that they were voting to benefit their private financial interests. The fact that it is recorded will make their position much clearer. Thus, the Committee opted for openness.
For the first time, the report defines the sort of gifts that must be declared. The figure is given as "over £125" and, as benefit in kind, 0·5 per cent. of the current salary of a Member of Parliament. That has never been adequately defined. It has been adequately defined for Ministers in the past. They have either had to return the gift, pay the balance—it used to be £30—or distribute the gift, if possible, around the members of their private office.
Those rules arose on the basis of the experience of a silver coffee pot. Tony Crosland opened a school and was given a silver coffee pot. Several months later it was discovered that the coffee pot was donated by Mr. Poulson and there were a lot of red faces. It was then decided that Ministers should not receive gifts because it might be argued that those gifts were being used to corrupt them. Ministerial rules were therefore laid down for Ministers' protection and the better information that Ministers were conducting their public affairs with the best possible probity.
That is really what the report is about. The rules represent an improvement and contain nothing to which

hon. Members should object. They mean greater accountability. They will apply to Members of Parliament who apply much tighter rules to those outside this place. It would be hypocritical and double standards if any hon. Member voted against the rules while applying tighter rules to those outside.

Mr. Peter Viggers: It is never a happy experience to probe and discuss whether or not we behave properly. In my view, this is an open and honest House and the exceptions are very rare and well publicised.
I shall restrict myself to only three points. First, what sort of control should there be? Should it be control by the House or statutory control? The Committee was guided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and by the previous Leader of the House, now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who took the firm view that we should not have statutory control, with the inevitable judicial procedures that that would involve, but that as a House we should police ourselves and Members of Parliament should be judged by their peers.
The Committee approached the issue on the basis that hon. Members are just that—honourable—and that the rules are there to guide them and give them protection. I join those who have urged hon. Members to rely on the registrar and, if in doubt, to register. The register should cause no fear. I voted against a register when it was first proposed, but I now recognise that the world has moved on and that the register exists to protect hon. Members as well as to police them.
Secondly, we are discussing two reports, the second of which is arguably the more important in the longer term. I refer to the report dealing with lobbying, which in recent years has become a large financial practice. The lobbyists—those who specialise in public relations—have, as their best interests, maximising of the number of clients and claiming that they have considerable influence over hon. Members and therefore, through the vote, the House. I am not sure that lobbying companies have as much influence—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be a separate debate on that issue, so the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to what is immediately under consideration. Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the two debates elided. Obviously, I was wrong.
My third point is that in Committee reference was made to members of Lloyd's and there was a vigourous discussion about how they should declare their interests. That provided the opportunity for quite a lot of fruitful political digging because more Conservative Members than Labour Members are members of Lloyd's—I think by a majority of 47 to zero.
I declare my interest as a member of Lloyd's since 1973, which predates my entry to the House, and an elected member of the Council of Lloyd's during the last 18 months. My guidance to the Committee was that it would be onerous to require members of Lloyds to declare their interests fully within the register. My view was based on a realistic premise of the way in which members of Lloyd's declared their interests in the working group on Lloyd's. I


said that I thought that the size of the register could be doubled if members of Lloyds declared their interests fully and in a manner that would fully explain their financial interests. My guidance was that that would throw the register out of kilter and put far too much on Lloyd's as against other matters.
Other Members took a different view. They thought that at least Members of Parliament should list their syndicate numbers for the year in question. My advice then and now is that that is a pretty pointless and rather prurient exercise because it does not give any full idea of the results that the member will get from Lloyd's in any one year. The numbers alone do not give an idea of the amount of his participation in any one syndicate. Nor does it show whether he has any so-called "stop loss" on his investments or whether he has any open years from previous years.
The issue has caused some concern and even anger among members of Lloyd's here. They feel that the exercise is prurient and pretty pointless. My considered judgment is that, as the world has moved on, there is keen interest in Lloyd's of London, which is an important and large institution. It is one of the largest single export earners in Britain. Individual participants inevitably receive some publicity if they participate in such an exercise. I say to my hon. Friends who are members of Lloyd's that the compromise on naming individual syndicates is not particularly productive, but perhaps it is a reasonable way of giving some further information on the membership of Lloyd's of Members of Parliament.
I abstained in the Committee. I do not feel particularly strongly about the issue now. I would prefer that the requirement was not included. Nevertheless, other members of the Committee felt strongly on the issue and I therefore commend the point to my hon. Friends, although I do not do so with any great enthusiasm.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall be brief, having spoken earlier this evening. I wish to place on record the fact that we all regret the passing of Robert Adley, who was an active member of the Committee for several years. Fie played a major part in the formulation of much of what is in the report.
I wish to qualify the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) about clients, in case some hon. Members are worried about the matter. The need to declare a client arises only where that client is being served by way of a Member carrying out his parliamentary duties. The form says that clearly in the box which deals with that matter. It does not require the registration of all clients of a Member of Parliament, who might well represent clients on matters unrelated to activities on the Floor of the House or the conduct of his work.
I draw attention to the matter of sponsorship. Labour Members do not object to sponsored Members having to declare or register. That is not the issue. The argument in the Committee was about whether there was a level playing field and whether it was right that only Labour Members who were sponsored, or whose constituency parties received money from trade unions, should have to declare sponsorship, when Conservative Members whose

constituency associations receive money from organisations on a regular basis or, indeed, one-off payments, historically have not registered those payments over the years. We simply sought to set a level playing field.
I went into the inquiry most worried about what I thought was happening in Parliament. One of the conclusions that I drew was that the problem was not so much the rules as the way in which the rules were applied in the form that Members are required to fill in annually. I concluded that, if we could simply redraw the form and marginally tighten up the rules, and if the rules were complied with, the form presented in the report would deal with many of the Committee's anxieties.
When we took evidence from the former Member for Winchester, John Browne, he repeatedly referred to what he said were ambiguities in our rules. We did not accept that ambiguities existed, but he believed that they did. That was his defence to many of the allegations made about his activities. During the course of the inquiry, therefore, we felt that we should tighten up the rules about which John Browne complained.
In the form that comprises annex I of the report, which makes the critical reform, the rules remain the same but they are presented differently—in the form of direct questions—which avoids any possible ambiguity.
The Committee's purpose over a number of years was always to seek a compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) sought the declaration of payments received by right hon. or hon. Members from outside interests. I was not prepared, in the spirit of compromise, even to go that far. I merely requested—an amendment in the report deals with this point—that where Members of Parliament receive more than £10,000 a year from any organisation, sponsoring body, consultancy or directorship, they should asterisk that in their report.
There was never an attempt by some members of the Committee to pry into the private affairs of individual right hon. and hon. Members. We accepted that a balance had to be struck between privacy and the public interest. I believe that the report, which I hope will be approved by the House tonight, secures that objective.

Sir Roger Moate: I want to place on record my deep unease at the manner in which we are asked to approve the report and some of its recommendations. That is not in any way to suggest that the Committee and its Chairman—my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—and others have not met their remit from the House. I do not doubt that they have done so thoroughly and conscientiously, but I feel uneasy about some of the features of the proceedings tonight—just as I felt uneasy, as I suspect did other right hon. and hon. Members, on those occasions when the House sought to pass judgment on the conduct of some colleagues, based on the Committee's rules and criteria.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Poulson affair of some 20 years ago. I still feel that the House acted in a most unfair manner in the way that it treated certain of our colleagues. That is not to make a judgment about the merits of those individuals, but I felt that, when the House passed judgment on someone


such as Mr. John Cordle, it did so unfairly and rather heavily, without giving that Member of Parliament a full opportunity to defend himself.

Mr. Skinner: He resigned.

Sir Roger Moate: As the hon. Gentleman says, Mr. Cordle resigned—but, without legislation and the precision of law, peer group pressure and that of the media are brought to bear on certain Members of Parliament, without their having an opportunity to defend themselves in the way open to other citizens.
We asked the Committee to make general recommendations with a lack of precision, and we are called upon to pass judgments on specific instances on the basis of very woolly laws and rules. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) might be surprised to learn that I go along with the line that he seems to recommend—that if one is to start on that course, one must be logical and precise, so that Members of Parliament ultimately know the rules on which we are supposed to opperate. That can only be done by the force of law, because we are determining the rules by which a right hon. or hon. Member can represent his constituency.
My argument is borne out in some respects by the procedure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicated that he had some reservations on certain points. None the less, it is right that we should accept this worthy report and pass it as it stands.
In law, one cannot have reservations about certain points and say that nevertheless the general principle is right. Our job is to tidy up those points. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) welcomed the fact that the Committee had been given some flexibility to deal with minor adjustments. That is fine, so long as it adjusts matters that concern me, or other people, but we have no assurance about that.
I want to draw three points to the attention of the House. The first relates to staff. The report says that there should be a declaration of gifts, visits and other benefits conferred upon staff. That is a wide-ranging remit. I just wonder whether we have the power, resources, facilities and ability to monitor staff. I am not aware of having conferred benefits upon any of those who might be described as my staff. Nevertheless, that question could arise. Therefore, I wonder whether we are entering an area that we have no real authority, skill or ability to monitor.
The second point relates to consultancies. Again, I have no interest to declare. I wish, perhaps, that I had. The wording is still, I believe, ambiguous. People can be directors of consultancies, or consultants to consultancies. They can be very large or small firms. They can have a very large or a very small list of clients. The benefits—some would say the dubious benefits—that would result from a Member being a consultant would be conferred, presumably, upon all those clients.
The report that we are being asked to agree to refers to clients who directly or indirectly benefit from the advice of a Member. That is a wide-ranging phrase. All I ask the House to consider is that at some stage in the future there will be a case that attracts a lot of media attention, in which some client is indirectly receiving the benefit of the consultancy of some hon. Member. If that does not lead to doubt and uncertainty, I do not know what will.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If in doubt, go to the Clerk.

Sir Roger Moate: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but in practice it means that if one has doubts, one must declare the list that contains the names of every single client of a particular agency. That is the only way ultimately to resolve the doubts. Every client of a consultancy or company must surely be receiving some indirect benefit from somebody, if that person is a director or consultant of that company. I do not believe that the House would accept such woolly phraseology in law. We shall get ourselves into difficulties by using such woolly phraseology here.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We are not talking about an indirect benefit in a general sense. We are talking specifically about the relationship that the member of the firm, who is a Member of Parliament, will have to that client, in pursuance of representations to a Minister or when speaking in the House, as a result of which he benefits as a consequence of his membership of that firm. We are talking about the active participation by a Member of Parliament in that relationship. It has nothing to do with the Member of Parliament indirectly benefiting for some other reason. It arises out of the work that he does for that client here in his parliamentary capacity.

Sir Roger Moate: Whether it arises directly or indirectly as a result of all those things, it is unsatisfactory.
My third point relates to our discussion about the location of property. There are reasonable interpretations of that, but we cannot leave it as wide as it is. We have left it very wide and very woolly, and it is still unsatisfactory. I hope that it will not happen, but in times to come we may find ourselves in difficulties because of the phraseology that we shall endorse tonight.

Ms Angela Eagle: The hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) has just made an interesting speech, which I suspect points towards a move to statutory control and away from self-regulation. Nevertheless, I welcome the report. It sticks firmly to the principle of self-regulation. I suspect that at this stage we ought to stick to it and ensure that it is tight enough to work. I welcome the debate on the report, which has already been delayed too long. Indeed, at least one register, possibly two, has been published under the old rules while the report has been in existence. I welcome the progress that we are making tonight in ensuring that we tighten the rules.
I agree with hon. Members who have said that the report aims to protect Members of Parliament. I note that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who originally voted against, has now come around to seeing things that way, and I agree with his observation that the world is changing and that we need to respond to it.
Why is it important that we do so? Given what we have seen in the past few weeks, we hardly need to ask that question. What we are discussing goes to the heart of our democracy, especially to its legitimacy. It is crucial to engender among the electorate trust in Members of Parliament and to counter a cynicism and disillusion with politics that has become obvious in some quarters in recent years.
It was Woody Allen, I think, who said that politicians as a profession were one notch below child molesters in the public esteem. Perhaps he knew from experience, but I


hope that what we are doing tonight will raise the rather low esteem in which our constituents hold us. We are debating serious matters, and the onus is on us to prove our honesty in an open and transparent way that engenders trust.
The report sensibly recognises the problem of self-assessment and the inconsistencies that result from it. It proposes to reduce those inconsistencies by sensible changes to the register. Only pecuniary interests are to be registered, which is absolutely right. We must maintain a register that is not too cumbersome but contains enough detail for it to be a meaningful document to which the public can refer when necessary.
I wish to deal quickly with a few of the changes that the report proposes. It proposes to divide category 5, financial sponsorships, into two new categories—sponsorship and occasional gifts. A somewhat spurious distinction is drawn between what we call the Hastings agreement money that is paid to Labour Members who are sponsored by a trade union and private donations to local associations of other political parties. I welcome the fact that declarations of donations of more than £500 must now be disclosed, but I do not understand the exemption for donations and quotas that are not linked to a Member's candidacy.
That spurious distinction caricatures the reality of trade union sponsorship and the way in which local branches of trade unions operate in local constituency Labour parties. The suggestion that union votes affect the outcome of parliamentary selections is not so true these days, and the charge that votes can be bought in a local constituency Labour party is wrong. I do not believe that I understand that distinction, and I should have preferred it if it had not been made.
I strongly support the switch to the use of questions on the registration form instead of the descriptive headings which characterised the old form because they make it harder for ambiguities to creep in and for misunderstandings or obvious omissions to emerge.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but one has emerged in the debate, and it may also be on her mind. I refer to the role of an intermediary between the donor and a constituency party organisation. It must be made clear that, if an hon. Member associates himself with a fund-raising appeal aimed at potential donors but the resulting donations are then remitted direct to the local party organisation, it would not seem to constitute acting as an intermediary. I think that that has wide application for all parties.

Ms Eagle: We possibly need to have a watching brief of what happens with various local methods of fund raising, which ties the debate to the issue of the funding of political parties and other matters, but I shall not stray from the motion. As a member of the Select Committee, I should want to keep a close eye on such matters for possible inclusion in future reports.
I also welcome the change to category 9, under which shareholdings are listed. It was an anomaly that the holding of I per cent. of the issued share capital of a company had to be declared, regardless of the size of that company, whereas nothing below that had to be declared. Under the old system, substantial shareholdings in large companies, which were worth a great deal of money, could go undeclared, while smaller—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [24 June ].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on Members' Interests of Session 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 326) relating to the registration and declaration of Members' financial interests, provided that the recommendation in paragraph 84 of the Report relating to the declaration of any relevant registered interest at the time of tabling an early day motion shall apply only to the Member in charge of such a motion.

Orders of the Day — Lobbying

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Mr. Bowen Wells: rose—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, but I believe that I have the floor.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the report on parliamentary lobbying. It is true that the report has been on the table for nearly two years, but a delayed debate is better than no debate. l imply no criticism of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. After we had completed part of our report on lobbying, we were interrupted by having to consider one or two complaints, which lasted a long time. We then went back to work, but, by that time, the election was nearly upon us.
I do not think that anything fundamental has happened in the past two years which would alter or allay the concerns which gave rise to the Committee's inquiry and report, so let me try briefly to summarise those concerns. The first and most basic is that, over the past 15 years or so, we have experienced a significant growth in all types of lobbying activities. There is nothing new or intrinsically wrong with lobbying; it is probably the second oldest profession and, to my mind, it dates back to the time when King John was lobbied by the knights, who got the best of the bargain.
Lobbying can be seen as the sign of a healthy democracy in that organisations, interest groups, charities and individuals want to bring their views and problems to the attention of Members of Parliament, Departments and Ministers. What is new, however, is the increased organisation and professionalism of that process. Much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat or leave.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, much lobbying is conducted by or on the advice of professional consultancies, which charge substantial fees for their services and are in competition with one another for the available business.
Because of that competitive environment with large sums of money at stake, there is naturally a concern that traditional lobbying, which is undoubtedly an aid to healthy parliamentary democracy, may evolve step by imperceptible step, into forms of covert pressure and persuasion that could ultimately damage our democracy—[Interruption.] There seem to be two debates going on at the moment, and I do not know what is happening below the Gangway. However, I hope that hon. Members who are paying attention to this debate have heard what I have said.
The next area of concern is the increasing use made of the facilities of the House for promotional or lobbying activities. I will say no more about that tonight. It is a matter more for the domestic Committees than for the Select Committee on Members' Interests. To some extent, that issue is already being tackled by measures such as the

limitation on passes for the staff of hon. Members. However, the issue figures prominently in the evidence that the Committee took during its inquiry, and that concern should not be discounted.
The next concern is perhaps felt more keenly outside the House than inside. The dividing line between professional lobbyists and politicians is no longer perceived by many people outside this place to be clear. There is no law or rule of the House that prevents a Back-Bench Member from accepting paid consultancies, some of which involve work closely akin to that of professional lobbyists.
Those links with the commercial world outside Westminster bring great benefits to the House in many ways. However, we must also recognise that the House is unusual among Parliaments in the developed world in allowing hon. Members such freedom. Some do not allow outside interests. I declare that I have a range of outside interests and that might prejudice me in favour of the report that we considered previously and the report that we are debating now. However, people will know where I stand, and if they think that I am influenced by outside interests, so be it.
If that freedom is to be justified, freedom must be counterbalanced by adequate safeguards. Our rules for registration and declaration of financial interests are, as we have agreed tonight, the most important safeguard. To apply similar rules to the professional lobbying firms would, in the Committee's opinion, reinforce those safeguards and provide a cross-check for the register.
The Committee's report is more in the nature of a Green Paper than a White Paper with a fully finished set of proposals. In the light of the concerns that I have mentioned, the report suggests that the House should decide, in principle, that a register of professional lobbyists should be established. Such a decision, which I am disappointed that we cannot take tonight because we are debating the matter on an Adjournment motion, would be a green light to the Select Committee to enter discussions with the lobbying profession about the details. We have drafted guidelines and a code of conduct in the annex to the report, which are intended as no more than a cock-shy.
The report reaches three firm conclusions about the proposed register. First, like the Register of Members' Interests, it should be founded on a resolution of the House and not on statute law. Its enforcement would therefore be a matter for the House and not for the courts.
Secondly, the register should, at least to start with, cover only professional lobbyists—that is, firms or individuals who are paid to lobby on behalf of clients or to advise clients on how to lobby on their own behalf. The report refers to a group of professional lobbyists including some household names which are in sympathy with the concept that we should enter discussions with them about setting up a register.
If there were professional lobbyists, that would exclude two much more numerous classes: for example, those in the public affairs departments of some of the country's big firms, who lobby on behalf of their immediate employers rather than on behalf of outside clients. Hon. Members understand who we mean. The other group involves charities, professional bodies, industrial associations and similar pressure groups that lobby on behalf of the industries or groups that they represent.
Thirdly, the register should list firms and their clients, but it should not follow the equivalent registers in the United States and Canada—we went to Canada to


examine the Canadian system—in attempting to record each individual lobbying project or act of lobbying. If that were the case, one would probably have a list as long as one's arm.
As a result, the proposed register would be quite limited in scope and should not impose an undue administrative burden or costs on the Department of the Clerk of the House.
Hon. Members who have read the report will have noticed that it did not pass through the Committee without controversy. There was a minority view, which might be expressed during this debate, that the House would gain nothing from the establishment of a register of lobbyists. It is argued, in particular, that registration by the House would confer recognition and respectability on the lobbying firms which they might not deserve but which would boost their credibility with potential clients.
I remember that we came to the conclusion that that would be one of the drawbacks, but some hon. Members subsequently changed their minds. The House would be put to great trouble, so it is argued, and expense in establishing and maintaining the register, but its effect would be to encourage the development of professional lobbying rather than to control it.
Those are the arguments, which I have fairly set out, against our proposal. I understand the arguments, but I do not regard them as outweighing the arguments for taking action. There seems to be a clear case for more openness about lobbying activity.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend referred to openness in lobbying. Paragraph 10 on page li of his excellent report states that the Committee took evidence
from three of the larger trade unions.
In particular, it took evidence that the Confederation of Health Service Employees had six sponsored hon. Members and that the Transport and General Workers Union had 33 sponsored hon. Members. Paragraph 11 states:
Those questioned made no secret of what they expected from their MPs.
Paragraph 12 states:
The TGWU official told us 'Clearly if a Member of Parliament…has failed to do that…it would be perfectly legitimate for us to say, "Look, the relationship isn't working".'''
Paragraph 15 states:
What is more a paid lobby of 33 MPs is so huge as to make one wonder whether it does not constitute a political party in its own right".
Would my hon. Friend be prepared to comment on that section of his report?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. If I were to embark on any comment, it might disturb the thread of my argument, and I prefer any points to be made in another way by other hon. Members. A little discretion at this point is important for me. I heard what my hon. Friend says. I understand and I am obliged to him.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has raised an important issue. After that evidence was given by, I think, Mr. Regan-Scott, the trade union official involved, the union dissociated itself from that comment. It is simply untrue. I must assume that he got out of bed the wrong side that morning.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. One can see how these matters lead to important difficulties, and I do not want to rehash strongly held points on either side of the argument. I want to stick to the general matter of the need for lobbying. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) might feel that my remarks only justify his point.
Let me repeat that there is a clear case for more openness in lobbying and greater transparency. Members of Parliament and Ministers might be well aware who the lobbyists are and who the lobbyists' clients are, but, even if that is so, and I suspect that there are many gaps in most hon. Members' knowledge, the public also have a legitimate interest in knowing more about those who make a living out of influencing the decisions of Government and the Parliament which they elected.
Several countries with comparable systems to ours have come to the same conclusion and have established a system for registering lobbyists. The report contains much evidence about that, particularly about the Canadian arrangements which are based upon an Act of Parliament and which came into operation in 1989. A committee of the Canadian House of Commons recently reviewed the operation of the Act. It stated:
Overall … the Act has added a measure of transparency to the activities of lobbyists. The public now has an opportunity to know who, for pay, is attempting to influence certain government decisions… The disclosure of lobbying activities is intended to increase public understanding of, and faith in, the operation of government. Ensuring that there is less secrecy surrounding lobbying activities will have the added benefit of discouraging lobbyists from engaging in unseemly behaviour.
That leads me to the second consideration that weighs strongly with me. Lobbying in Britain today has reached such a level of significance that some basic ground rules are necessary to show the dividing line between what is acceptable practice and what is unacceptable. At one time, it was reasonable to hope that the profession might develop its own standards and guidelines, and the machinery to police them. During our inquiry, it became clear that that hope was unlikely to be realised. If there is to be a code of conduct, it would have to be either imposed by statute—I do not think that the Government or the House would support that—or introduced by the House with registration as the carrot and the powers of the House to punish contempt as the stick to punish any who may transgress against the code.
That is the course recommended in the Committee's report. I await with interest the views of hon. Members on that central recommendation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. There appears to be some confusion.

Mr. Newton: The confusion is that I was told that it would be appropriate if I were not called next, in order to preserve the practice of going from one side of the House to the other. I had originally intended to speak at this


point, but the reason for my hesitation is that I received a stare of a different sort by a route that perhaps I should not describe—it was not entirely the usual channels.
I am pleased to be able to respond to the requests, most notably those from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who must feel as though it is his birthday, having got two things that he wanted on the same evening after pressing for so long.
My role in this debate, as may be the case for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), is one of listening to the views expressed on an occasion when, as with the main report on Members' interests a year ago, the purpose is to gain some idea of the feel in the House as a whole on the recommendations made by the Committee about lobbying. For that reason, I do not intend to say a great deal. As I said, I am in listening mode.
In fairness to the House, I am a little sceptical about the strength of the case for what is proposed in the report. I make that observation as a personal one, rather than as a great statement of Government policy. Obviously, we will consider what is said tonight.
Perhaps I can best give my reasons for approaching the recommendation in a slightly sceptical way by adverting not only to the two points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) properly emphasised or rehearsed as reasons for the reservations expressed by some Members of his Committee—that is, the question of the considerable additional bureaucracy that almost certainly would be required to maintain such a register, and the possibility that the establishment of such a register would effectively be seen as giving a seal of approval to specific activities by specific firms in a way that might not be precisely what the House would wish. It may be that one could prevent people from putting "Approved lobbyist to the House of Commons" on their notepaper, but I am not sure that the House would generally regard that outcome with great enthusiasm.
I must confess to having to question whether the real beneficiaries of this proposal would not be such lobbyists by that sort of route, rather than the House in gaining some great improvement in its protection from lobbying, or, indeed, an enhancement of the standards of lobbying. As I said, I shall ask questions, rather than give views that are set in concrete. Those questions will need considerable examination before the House would wish to go down this route.
I am reinforced in my view by considerable doubt about whether the distinction, which I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden to be seeking to draw, between professional lobbyists and others who are engaged in almost the same line of business could be sustained for long. It is worth my placing on the record the second half of paragraph 2 of the report, in which the question of definition is approached.
The report says:
We also use the expression 'professional lobbyist', by whom we mean someone who is professionally employed to lobby on behalf of clients or who advises clients on how to lobby on their own behalf. There is, in addition, another category of paid lobbyist, much larger numerically: those whose job it is to make representations on behalf of their employers or particular interests such as charities, professional bodies, industrial or commercial associations, or other pressure groups. We readily appreciate that some of those to whom we refer as 'lobbyists' or 'professional lobbyists' will

not recognise themselves as such, or consider that their actions amount to lobbying. We recognise, too, that apart from political consultants of various kinds, members of some other professions who arc most unlikely to consider themselves as 'lobbyists', solicitors or accountants, for example, may act in a representative capacity or give advice the nature of which amounts to 'professional lobbying'.
That paragraph gives a pretty clear indication of some of the definitional problems that would arise in a restrictive approach to the register and of the immense practical problems that would arise if a more broadly based definition was adopted. It could easily produce a position in which almost every paid worker of every large voluntary organisation or national charity in the country, together with the public relations managers of many larger firms and a whole range of other people, extending at the extreme to solicitors or accountants, who are specifically mentioned as undertaking activities that amount to professional lobbying, would be on the register. The difficulties of a register that was as widely drawn as that, if it proved difficult to sustain the narrower definition, as I suspect that it would, would be immense.
I make a last point about the questions that the House would need to think through before it went down that path. The Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden very fairly acknowledged, said in effect that it would be much better to have a voluntary code of registration by the industry itself rather than a register that was imposed, as is raised as a possibility by the report. I rather share the view that such a voluntary code would be better.
As it could be argued that the main beneficiaries of the proposal would be those who wished to engage in this activity rather than those of us who are subject to it. I am inclined to think that the most appropriate course would be to make a further effort, if that were possible, to promote the establishment of a voluntary code by the industry. I recognise the reasons why the Committee shied away from that. However, the House as a whole may wish to consider whether the right next step would not be for the industry to make a further effort, with encouragement from the Select Committee, rather than for the House to go down the path that raises the difficult questions on which I have touched. I conclude where I began: I am listening, although I felt it right to express those causes of scepticism.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I was somewhat amused to hear the Leader of the House say that this was an issue that needed considerable consideration—a view with which I wholeheartedly concur. As the report has been around for two years, it has had quite a lot of consideration already. We are tonight only, after all, at the very preliminary stage of considering the issues raised in the report rather than proceeding to recommendations. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity for the House to make some observations on the report. I shall be as brief as possible so that hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate will have the opportunity to do so.
I of course take the point made by the Leader of the House about the danger that having a register would confer status on the so-called "professional lobbyists" rather than act as a check on their activities. However, the


report makes it clear that these issues exercised the minds of the members of the Select Committee from the beginning and were given much consideration.
I have to admit that it seems to me that, just as with the establishment of the very first register and the decision to establish a register of the interests of Members' staff, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, a register of this kind will be set up—and it may as well be sooner rather than later. I expect that, once it has been established, people will look back and wonder why we took so long to recognise the necessity and inevitability of such a scheme.
Even though the report is two years old, one thing shines through. Of common concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House is the extent to which Members of Parliament are vulnerable, and becoming increasingly vulnerable, to the activities of lobbyists. This vulnerability derives primarily from defects in the services provided for Members. I realise that there have been substantial improvements, but we all know perfectly well that, given the work load and the volume and complexity of legislation, Members are simply not adquately staffed to enable them to give issues the scrutiny that they merit.
Nor is the House itself staffed on the scale commensurate with the requirements. In a sense, this is rather like the old issue of gentleman and players. The House is still behaving like a bunch of gentlemen, dealing in a rather amateurish way with legislation, while hon. Members are continually and increasingly receiving the attentions of people who in this area are very much professionals.
Running through many comments on this issue, although not necessarily through the Select Committee report, is the fact that particular danger and particular vulnerability to the professional lobbyist arise in respect of the provision of finance or services. That does not seem to me to be the case. It seems to me that the greatest danger to which hon. Members are exposed, the matter in respect of which they are most vulnerable, is the insidious service which can be provided to Members who want to scrutinise legislation conscientiously.
I refer to apparently high-quality information, which seems to make an almost incontrovertible case and is presented in an easily accessible manner to a Member of Parliament who is not adequately resourced to check its quality properly. Professional lobbyists can make a case which seems so outstanding that the arguments must carry. Members are not adequately staffed to counter those arguments to the necessary extent.
Members of Parliament are particularly vulnerable to the so-called professional lobbyist, partly because it is less likely that there will be a clear indication as to the identity of the person on whose behalf he is working. Referring to paragraph 2 of the report, the Leader of the House mentioned the concern about whether problems would be caused for trade unions, charities and other non-profit-making organisations. However, paragraph 53 makes it clear that none of those organisations objects to being included in a register or to the provision of a register. Indeed, they believe that lobbying, even of the kind that they undertake, should be fully in the open. They are not prepared to see themselves and their circumstances used as an argument against the existence of a lobby.
The second matter in respect of which Members of Parliament are particularly vulnerable to the professional lobbyist is a refinement or extension—I do not know which to call it—of the issue of lobbying. I am thinking of

a group of individuals or companies who put their professional services at the disposal of a range of clients. That could make less clear the pattern of interests being built up and represented.
A third danger could arise from the extensive development of lobbying firms, and it could take the form of a quid pro quo arrangement. Someone could say, "You did not support me on this issue, but perhaps you would like another client better. Surely you will not turn me down every time I come to you with a perfectly sound case." I am sure that all hon. Members can imagine professional lobbying companies, many of them skilled, putting such a case effectively because they represent a range of interests. Such a company is much more likely than one which represents just one interest, such as a trade association, to build up a more general acquaintance with hon. Members.
By such means, a person who is associated with a professional lobbying enterprise is likely to gain access to this place. He could be an associate of a member of staff or use some form of pass which would afford greater access than the House would wish to see and which is not readily available to members of the public.
I welcome the report's approach. There is merit in the suggestion that the firm rather than the individual lobbyist should take responsibility. That is a practicable and workable suggestion. We have recently seen the value of a proposal for a proper clients list published by those who lobby. The report contains words which were probably uttered by the late Robert Adley. In a passage about the growth of lobbying the report states:
I personally think it poses quite a grave threat to the working of Members of Parliament and the extent to which it has grown over the last few years is quite frightening.
That was reported two years ago, and the words have gained increasing force.

Ms Angela Eagle: I support the proposal to establish a register of lobbying interests. Such a register is essential to ensure transparency so that people who have direct professional contact with hon. Members can be identified by the public. Relationships must be open and above board, and that can be proved by comparing the Register of Members' Interests and the proposed register of lobbying interests.
The Select Committee report highlights the almost exponential growth in the turnover of the mushrooming number of professional lobbyists. It has risen from an estimated £3·25 million in 1983–84 to an estimated £9 million in 1991. Growth is at the rate of 20 to 25 per cent. a year, and that points to the urgency of the need to establish a system by which we can keep a check on what is going on.
No one associated with the report or taking part in the debate would, I hope, deny the importance of lobbying or the fact that the right to lobby elected representatives is fundamental to democracy. An explanation of its growth is that the increasing complication of our legislative process has led to a multiplication of lobbying interests to deal with some of those complications.
In addition, over the years, support facilities for hon. Members have become increasingly inadequate, despite the welcome interest in our office costs allowance. Our constituency work load has increased enormously at the same time as we have been arraigned by complex legislation, which we must consider at short notice. In


those circumstances, the support provided by a good briefing, whatever its source, can offer help and relief to anyone contemplating legislation in the Chamber or in a Standing Committee on a Bill or statutory instrument.
Oddly enough, I gave evidence to the Select Committee inquiry before being elected. I drew a distinction between those companies that lobby, professionally, on behalf of a range of clients and sell their professional services, and those people who, like me, might pop into the House to organise a nurses' lobby, talk to sponsored Members or contact Back-Bench groups on a particular subject which was exercising the mind of the organisation for which they worked—in my case, the Confederation of Health Service Employees, COHSE. Professional lobbyists, however, are likely to be here day in, day out, dealing with the same hon. Members.
The lobbying to which I have been subjected since I was elected varies depending on whether the lobbyist is a professional one, with a list of clients or a member of a particular trade union or professional association. My entertainment budget in my old job was extremely modest and hardly compares with that of some professional lobbyists, judging from the lunches and dinners to which I am invited on a regular basis. Those lobbyists also end up at our party conference and various other venues to establish their contacts.
I agree with the distinction between lobbyists that the report has drawn. The register would be a welcome means of improving openness. It would also cast some light on the important issue of privileged access to Westminster, which some lobbying organisations may be acquiring for profit. If we are to protect the reputation of Parliament, we need to support the report's recommendations.

Mr. Bob Cryer: We are talking about bodies that are paid to influence Members of Parliament and Departments. We are not talking about the sacred right of ordinary people to write to their Member, get hold of him at his advice surgery and lobby him at Westminster. The hon. Member can then decide whether to take up the matter raised. That right to lobby remains inalienable. We are talking about those who are paid to lobby, however, and who do so because they have an interest in the revenue gained.
When I was first elected to the 1974–79 Parliament, the then Labour Government were in the process of legislating to take into public ownership the ship repairing, aerospace and shipbuilding industries. They had a perfect right to do so. That policy was, however, opposed by the Conservative party.
An organisation, International News Services, was employed by a particular ship repairer to ensure that ship repairing was excluded from the legislation. That organisation made use of fake shop stewards—all the genuine shop stewards who opposed the firm's policy and who believed in public ownership were sacked. It also hired the private Dining Rooms of the House. It is a continuing scandal that those rooms are hired secretly—a practice that should end. Nobody knows who hires them. They are used mostly by PR organisations who pay Members to get the facilities and all the panoply of the Palace of Westminster.
I object to that, but if people want to do it they should not be ashamed of it and do it in secret. It is time that those bookings were published. International News Services books those dining rooms and encourages Members of Parliament to attend dinners and lunches. It hired a yacht on the Thames and encouraged Members to go down into the Thames—[Interruption.] I should say that it encouraged Members to go to the yacht moored in the Thames, if hon. Members want to make little jokes about the matter. It also sent people to Heathrow because the Labour Government did not have much of a majority. When John Stonehouse disappeared, the majority disappeared entirely.
When meeting certain Members from Northern Ireland, representatives of International News Services would bundle them into a cab and try to take them to a dinner and get them intoxicated so that they were not available to vote at 10 o'clock. They used to bring people to the House. I was with a group of Labour party Whips, who asked a group of people what they were doing here. The International News Services representative, a man called Alan Turnbull, went into the Strangers Bar and shouted. A Conservative Member came and he said that those five people were with that Member. Those five employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers turned round and said to the two Whips, "Watch out, we're going to get you for this." So threats were uttered.
If Members went on the Terrace, half a dozen alleged shop stewards—who were not shop stewards at all—would come and say, "What about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers?" That was the background.
When I raised the matter on points of order on the Floor of the House, the then Speaker referred it to the Select Committee on Administration. The Chairman of that Select Committee was an employee of International News Services. The Chairman of the Standing Committee that dealt with the legislation was a parliamentary adviser. an employee of International News Services.
So the tentacles of lobbying ran deep in the 1970s, and that caused me concern. My interest has been encouraged ever since because, although the methods have become less blunt, the tentacles still exist.
I go not by my own views but by those of lobbyists. Many years ago, the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, employed a head of press in his office at No. 10, a man called Trevor Lloyd-Hughes, who had been a lobby correspondent here. Trevor Lloyd-Hughes got to know all the ways of this place and No. 10, and when he left he established a public relations organisation with all the connections already to hand. A brochure that he put out to a restricted circulation said that he
Organised lunches and receptions, some within the Houses of Parliament, attended by important people. Arranged for business leaders, including the heads of American. French and British companies, to have private meetings with eminent personalities in London, including Cabinet Ministers, former Prime Ministers, the Queen's Principal Private Secretary, former British Ambassadors, and men at the very top of the United Kingdom diplomatic and Civil Service.
According to Sir Trevor, his methods have been successful. He said:
We have obtained important tax concessions from the British government over their legislation on North Sea oil revenues. Saved the international motor car and motor cycle industries based in the United Kingdom millions of pounds by


persuading the government to exempt them from provisions in the Trade Descriptions Acts. Won British government financial backing for a major development in Turkey.
Lloyd-Hughes is often dismissed as a lobbyist of the old school, now gone. But it is worth reminding Members that the constituency agent to a member of the current Government, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) produced a brochure offering
Contact with ministers and civil servants in departments such as the DTI and Energy in order to enhance their understanding of the needs of your industry and company. Arrangement of luncheons and dinners for ministers, MPs and MEPs to meet and speak to company directors and managers and, if desired, their guests. Arrangement of carefully tailored social events, such as theatre, opera and sporting occasions, affording seniro company personnel the opportunity to brief legislators…on the company's needs and interests.
That was in 1989, so Trevor Lloyd-Hughes and his cohorts are not all that far out of date.
The point is that, if certain people, by buying the services of a commercial lobbying organisation, can gain more than the ordinary person, that is wrong. It should not be possible to buy influence. It is one thing to give information and for members of the Government to make a judgment and come down on one side or the other, but Trevor Lloyd-Hughes said in his brochure that Ministers, having agreed on a decision with him, asked him how best to present that decision. That means that the PR merchants are getting to the heart of Government, and recent events do not contradict that assertion. Indeed, they show that a PR merchant had got to a number of Cabinet Ministers and a junior Minister at the Northern Ireland Office, who perforce has had to resign because of the exposure.
How much is going on behind the scenes? That is the question that lingers in people's minds. The register would achieve two things. First, it is true that to be on a register with the imprimatur of the House of Commons would confer a cachet and prestige. Therefore, removal from the register would be an important penalty, as it would remove the cachet and the prestige.
The code of conduct that would accompany the register would be scrupulously obeyed, because the danger of removal from the register would bring with it removal of the advantages conferred by registration. Although I accept that a cachet and prestige would be conferred, that would also mean a power in our hands, because removal would become a formidable weapon to enforce the code of conduct that we think desirable.
The aim of a register and code of conduct is to ensure openness, so that people know what is happening. The reality is that ordinary citizens cannot buy influence—they can achieve it only by pressure. People often underestimate their ability to put pressure on Members of Parliament.
The recent campaign by sub-post offices has been a masterly success. They did not employ any public relations companies or commercial lobbying organisations: they just put sheets of paper on the counter saying that the policy of the Department of Social Security could result in closures and asked people to sign a petition against that. They signed in their millions. Every hon. Member received letters from individual constituents. That sort of pressure still remains the best way to influence Members of Parliament.
However, there are disturbing trends that I do not like, and which I suspect a large number of hon. Members do

not like. It is one reason why, two years ago, a Committee with a Conservative majority produced a report recommending a register. If people want to find reasons for a register, they need only look at Mark Hollingsworth's book "MPs for Hire".
When I entered Parliament, an hon. Member could not say that Members of Parliament were available for hire. One did, and he was reported to the Select Committee for breach of privilege, and the Committee said that it was. I am referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who wrote in Labour Weekly that Members of Parliament were available for hire.
Now it is a matter-of-fact phrase—people do not jib at it. Indeed, there have been scenes on television programmes of Members of Parliament saying, "Yes, I am open to offers for lobbying services." People take the view that Members of Parliament are, after all, for hire. That is another reason why we need a register.
Some of the lobbying organisations are very arrogant indeed. Lloyd-Hughes claimed, for example, that he could set up all-party groups and have parliamentary questions tabled. It is interesting to examine the all-party groups. The secretariats for some of them are provided by commercial lobbying organisations. It is a strange business that such organisations can provide a secretariat for a lobbying group that is involved in the very subject for which the commercial lobbying organisation is receiving money.
The report revealed that Ian Greer Associates, one of the biggest and, some would say, most powerful and influential lobbying organisations in this place, paid between £4,000 and £10,000 to Members of Parliament who introduced new business to the organisation. That is in the report. It is not anything fresh. The Committee asked Ian Greer Associates about declaration of the money. Ian Greer simply refused to give the High Court of Parliament any information. We asked whether he had advised the Members to declare the money. He said that he had not got round to doing that, but in retrospect he thought that perhaps it might have been a useful thing to do.
So a person who was, it could be argued, buying influence by obtaining business through Members of Parliament and paying substantial sums of money for it, refused to provide a Select Committee with information about the numbers and names of people involved. That is an arrogant attitude.
The other thing that grieves me is that we are here supposedly to represent the people who sent us. It seems wrong to me that people should seek to obtain financial advantage from commercial lobbying organisations over and above their salary. I consider the salary of a Member of Parliament adequate. I know that some Conservative Members of Parliament regard it as a foolish attitude to say that £30,000 a year is adequate, but I find it so.
I believe that it is wrong that Members of Parliament should have outside interests, particularly interests related directly to their activity here. That is another reason why we should have a register. Large sums of money change hands in such circumstances. We can only guess what they are, but the Committee ascertained that amounts of between £4,000 and £10,000 were paid by Greer Associates for the introduction of new clients.
I heartily recommend the book by Mark Hollingsworth. It points out that, for example, Ian Greer attended a private meeting of the Tory trade and industry


committee in March 1989. Some Conservative Members jibbed at that, because it was a private meeting. Ian Greer was there apparently because the chairman of Plessey was to speak and Greer was employed by Plessey against a GEC takeover and wanted to do some lobbying in the influential Back-Bench Conservative trade and industry committee. Again, the lobbyist claims that he does not pay money to Members of Parliament.
The book refers to a letter from, as it happens, a Labour Member of Parliament, the former Member for Derby, South, Mr. Walter Johnson. It says:
In late 1983, after retiring from Parliament, Johnson wrote in appreciation:
'As you will kindly recall, you agreed to pay me a fee of 1,000 for services to your company and that this would be paid in the form of paying a bill for a holiday.
I very much regret that I have not been able to help you as much as I would have wished but, as you know, I have always been available if you wanted me, and this position still prevails.'''
When people talk about Members of Parliament being available for hire, that is the sort of thing that they cite. The same Mr. Johnson was involved in maintaining Associated Octel's campaign to retain lead in petrol—arguably, not one of the most altruistic campaigns that a Member of Parliament could support.
There is a powerful case for a register, which would help to curb the excessive zeal of some lobbyists. A code of conduct would also help. The Government ought to register the occasions on which commercial lobbyists meet Ministers acting as Ministers. They do not register them at present.
When I was a Minister at the Department of Industry, I received a letter from the self-same Mr. Lloyd-Hughes inviting Ministers to a private dinner to discuss manning arrangements in industry. At least two Ministers accepted, but I was the exception. I would not have lunch with Lloyd-Hughes for all the tea in China. That was at the heart of Government. I have no doubt that that sort of lobbying still goes on, and it should at least be registered by the Government, so that it would be possible to identify the occasions on which commercial lobbying has taken place.
Lobbyists can get to meet members of the Cabinet, Ministers of State, and Under-Secretaries of State—whereas ordinary people find it difficult to do so. Despite that difficulty, fortunately, some campaigns led by ordinary people have sufficient power and verve to be successful, and we want that to continue.
Although we welcome this short debate, it is two years since the report. Some critics say that is because the Government do not regard this issue as important. I have been campaigning for a register of commercial lobbying organisations since 1974. Some lobbyists, to do them credit, are happy about accepting a register.

Mr. David Harris: They would love it.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman says that they would love it. If they do, it will be that much more hurtful and damaging to lobbyists removed from the register, and that sanction is important.
Because this short debate is two years overdue, the evidence to accompany the report is not available from the Vote Office but only to order. That is one drawback of a report appearing after a two-year gap. I urge the

Government to take action and to establish a register and a code of conduct—and let us ensure there are no grounds for outside criticism that Members of Parliament are for hire.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: It is unfortunate that the House has had to wait two years for this important debate. I may point out that many of the abuses to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred will be dealt with under the new registration arrangements, where they relate to Members of Parliament.
I take a different view from my hon. Friend about the way the Government work. I do not believe that lobbyists necessarily corrupt or that the use of lobbying organisations is necessarily wrong. I see a positive and meaningful role for the lobbying industry in this country.
My hon. Friend referred to the role of lobbyists in providing material to right hon. and hon. Members. Earlier this evening, the House debated the THORP issue, and a British Nuclear Fuels lobbyist was in the House and advised me during that debate. His advice was most important, and to some extent had some influence on the debate. It is important that people representing various industries and organisations are available to brief Members of Parliament, because they often provide critically important information that, even with additional research, right hon. and hon. Members would not be able to obtain.
What worries me is that some of these lobbying organisations are shoddy. That was always Robert Adley's case in Committee. He stated repeatedly that some of these people are poor operators and waste people's money by pretending to sell a service when they have no expertise in how this place works.
I have met lobbyists from lobbying organisations outside the House of Commons who really do understand how this place works. They have a better knowledge of how Government works than many hon. Members. They understand the pressure points in Departments. They understand how to obtain access to Ministers.
Yes, they use Members of Parliament on occasion. I do not object to that. All I ask is that the whole process should be utterly transparent—this is what the debate in Committee was all about—so that we know when we meet someone who they are, who they represent, what their motive is and what they want. So long as we understand that, surely we are all adult enough to cope with the pressures that commercial organisations might exert on us.
In many ways, therefore, I am a positive supporter of that industry. I see the lobbyist as the advocate. He is the advocate for a particular case, which people outside the House of Commons are often unable to put, because they do not understand the way the case has to be presented to government. I have seen cases presented to Governments by outside organisations whose presentation has been appalling. It has taken a lobbyist to come along, clean it up and present it in a far more effective way—often in an abbreviated form but hitting on the essential issues.
That is only one way of influencing Government decision taking. There are other ways of doing it. The critical way is in Parliament. We are but one route. At the end of the day, we take the final decision on many issues. We vote in the House of Commons Division Lobbies on


recommendations put to us by Ministers. Of course, the Whips are there, but we have the right to stand up in Parliament and put our case.
Furthermore, we have access to Ministers, in the same way as any outside lobbying organisation or any industry. It is all part of the balance in the operation of government. It is designed to ensure that all these organisations, Members oP Parliament and others can play their part in trying to influence the way in which decisions are taken.

Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure he agrees with me that, even if we accept that commercial lobbying organisations can provide information to my hon. Friend and every other Member of Parliament, it should not be necessary to pay money to any Member of Parliament in order to obtain representation. A Member of Parliament should form his judgment on the strength of the case, not on the strength of any cheque that is presented to him.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I unequivocally and unconditionally subscribe to the view expressed by my hon. Friend. It is wrong that Members of Parliament should be paid by lobbying organisations. We are sent to the House of Commons to represent outside organisations and our constituents, and to ensure that the case is put to Ministers. However, it is a perfectly healthy part of the democratic process, when no remuneration is involved, for organisations to make direct representations to Ministers, or for them to come to us and ask us to put their case to Ministers. It was because we were of that view that many of us believed that it was possible to knock heads together in the industry and get them to come up with some arrangement whereby they would set up a voluntary register.
I must draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 71 of our report. It is an indicator of how far we went to try to find another way of resolving this difficulty. I hope the House will forgive me if I read it:
We very much regret that the option of a Register, administered by the industry itself, and with an industry-wide code of conduct and effective disciplinary procedure seems not to be an option at present…since this would have many attractions. If the industry had a more unified and professional structure, it would be in a better position than anyone else to discern abuses and the House need not be concerned with the problems and expense of administration. Although such a Register would inevitably be voluntary in the first instance, it might be possible, given the emergence of a professional body of sufficient standing, eventually to establish a statutory framework, which would assist that body to administer the Register.
That was what we set out to do. I know that the Chairman of the Committee held a number of discussions with outside organisations to try to knock their heads together and to achieve an arrangement that would avoid our having to take decisions in Parliament. We were perfectly prepared to accept and to back that arrangement with some statutory framework, but we failed.
In responding to the previous debate, the Leader of the House said, " I think that the Select Committee should think again." I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I just do not think that it will work. I wish that it could be worked out on that basis, but there is not the will among organisations to get together on that basis. That is why many of us were driven into a compromise arrangement. We did not particularly want to go down that route, but, because we could not get them to stand together and take on the responsibility of policing the industry in a way that

was acceptable to Parliament, based on the transparency that people such as myself, who support the industry, wanted, we ended up taking this course.
I am sorry to detain the House, but I asked for this debate at business questions for about 20 weeks. Each week, I asked the same question. The Leader of the House was used to my request for a debate.
The Committee made a simple recommendation: that the House should take a decision in principle to establish a register of professional lobbyists. I shall tell the Leader of the House why it is important that that is carried. When lobbying organisations outside realise that we really mean business, which means that the Select Committee is faced by an instruction from the House to get this matter sorted out, they may then decide to agree an arrangement that would preclude Parliament from being involved.
I am saying, give the Committee the power to get on with the job and take it a stage further by giving it the right to establish a register, and it may then be able to come back with a report at some stage recommending an alternative approach acceptable to Members. It would be acceptable to people such as myself, because we accept that, if such an approach is backed up by a statutory framework it will meet many of the reservations that hon. Members have expressed.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) ( European Standing Committees).

PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8487/90 and 5902/93 + COR 1, relating to plant variety rights; and supports the Government's intention of securing a system which is deregulatory in nature but which ensures a healthy United Kingdom and European plant breeding industry whilst safeguarding the interests of farmers and seed producers.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CIVIL DEFENCE

That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

OVERSEAS GOVERNMENTS (DEBTS)

That the draft Debts of Overseas Governments (Determination of Relevant Percentage) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

That Mr. Paul Channon be discharged from the National UNESCO Heritage Committee and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the
Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

UNESCO

Mr. Bowen Wells: I have the honour to present a petition from the United Nations Association and friends of UNESCO that has been signed by some 25,000 petitioners who believe that Britain should return to full membership of UNESCO. The principle reason is best summed up in the preamble to the UNESCO constitution, which was adopted on 16 November 1945 at the United Nations conference in London and entered into force in November 1946.
Crucially, the text, as amended in 1976, reads:
The Governments of the States, parties to this constitution on behalf of their people, declare that, since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled The humble petition of the people of the United Kingdom sheweth
—that it is an increasing shame that the United Kingdom still has not joined UNESCO
—that UNESCO was established in the aftermath of the Second World War for the countries of the United Nations to fight together against the evils of war and construct the defences of peace
—that current world events show that UNESCO is needed as much as ever; 172 countries believe that UNESCO is a vital part of the UN family and actively participate in the organisation's work
—that as a founder member in 1946 and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK has a responsibility to join once more with UNESCO's member states and work with them towards universal literacy, scientific development, the promotion of a free press and the preservation of our cultural heritage for future generations.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House proceed with rejoining membership of UNESCO expeditiously
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Railway Jobs (York)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Hugh Bayley: At Question Time today, I raised the subject of the 532 recently announced redundancies at Asea Boveri Brown Transportation's York carriage works and a further 364 redundancies at the company's other works in Crewe and Derby.
The redundancies are clearly a disaster for the individual workers and their families and are also a severe blow to York's economy and to the British balance of payments. They are, however, the reflection of a problem rather than the problem itself. Put simply, the problem is that the Government do not have, or at least do not appear to have, a strategy for rolling stock replacement and renewal or, indeed, a strategy for the railway manufacturing industry in general. If they do have a strategy, they are too shy to tell the public what it is or give it the necessary urgency to safeguard the needs of the travelling public and of the train builders—the companies and their work force.
The reason a real strategy for rolling stock renewal is needed becomes clear when one considers the nature of the British Rail fleet of passenger vehicles. British Rail has 11,000 passenger vehicles, which typically have a life of 30 to 40 years. An annual replacement programme of some 300 to 400 new vehicles would be needed to retain the existing fleet with the existing age profile. It would require an investment of £250 million to £300 million per year. If, on top of that, one were to predict a modest increase of 1 per cent. a year in traffic on the railways as a result of the country pulling itself out of recession, we should need an extra 120 vehicles a year—an investment of some £90 million.
If one believes what the Government say—I hope that it is true—about a shift of traffic from road to rail, and if one were to build in a further modest 1 per cent. increase in rail traffic each year, we should need another 120 vehicles, making a total annual investment in new passenger railway carriages of about £500 million. That compares with the Government's figure announced in the autumn statement for investment in new passenger carriages of £150 million. There is a large gap between the two figures.
The kind of projection that I am suggesting is not pie in the sky. In the late 1980s, Network SouthEast estimated that it needed 400 new carriages to be built each year. It negotiated with ABB. On the strength of Network SouthEast's projection of its future needs, ABB invested £15 million in its York carriage works to meet the demand that Network SouthEast suggested that it would need to contract for in the years to the turn of the century.
In terms of carriage building, ABB has created a rolling stock factory in York which is a centre of excellence not just in British or European terms, but on a worldwide basis. People from Europe who visit the factory say that they have nothing like that in Germany, Italy or France. The York factory is a world-class facility.
The factory has the capacity to build 400 carriages a year. Until recently, it was operating at half-capacity. As a result of the redundancies announced two or three weeks ago, it is now operating at one-third capacity. It could soon be operating at zero capacity, because, if further

orders do not come through, the works will close. Despite all the investment, that factory will no longer produce carriages.
What a shocking betrayal of British engineering that would be. What a dreadful waste of the £15 million invested by ABB. What kind of message would that send to other foreign companies considering investing in our country if a company takes the plunge, negotiates with customer, invests £15 million and then finds that the orders do not flow? What a damning indictment of Government policy that would be. The works would have closed, simply because the Government did too little too late to save them.
The Government did too little because they came up with 150 million rather than the £500 million necessary for an adequate replacement programme for the existing British Rail fleet. The Government are too late because they dithered. They announced £150 million in November, but the following summer we have still no clear indication when or if an order will be placed.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have a common interest in the issue, across the country and across the Floor of the House, particularly with regard to the speed or lack of it of the Government's announcing their decision to go ahead. I appreciate that it is for British Rail to make the decision, but I support the hon. Gentleman's argument that modern new rolling stock is long overdue for Kent commuters, for whom standards are still pretty appalling.
The Budget contained a very positive announcement to opt for leasing. In my Budget speech, I clearly supported that leasing plan and I welcomed the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had said that the Government were going to give a high priority to the future of manufacturing industry. On the issue of the works in York and the order that Network South East so badly needs, a number of points come together.
Let us implement the Government's good decision in the Budget. The essential needs of Kent commuters should be met. The operational needs of Network SouthEast, with the coming of channel tunnel trains, should be raised to much higher standards than at present, and the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be assured of a better future.

Mr. Bayley: I welcome that intervention by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and I absolutely concur with him. It is not just a Labour Member like me from a northern manufacturing constituency who believes that the order for Network SouthEast trains needs to be placed, and placed now. That view is shared by Conservative Members who represent constituencies in Kent and other counties served by Network SouthEast. It is also the view of the Railway Industry Association, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook). My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston wrote to his opposite number in the Department of Trade and Industry today to press the point. It is also the view of the Transport Select Committee and of the Engineering Employers Federation.
I am not asking the Minister to back a lame duck. The class 465 vehicle which is built in York is the train to reshape the railways. It is the universal Networker. It will run equally on an old southern region third rail


electrification or north of the Thames on a pantograph. The Government say that they want a leasing market in secondhand trains, which implies an interchangeability of rolling stock between lines, and the class 465 developed by ABB will provide precisely that. It would bring London's cummuter services into the 21st century.
The York-designed and York-built body shell of a 465 is the only body shell in Europe that has the European Community's full crash safety certification—none of its competitors has that. For the first time, this country has a train with major export potential to other countries in Europe.
That is not a pipe dream. The York works has already won a European order. It is building the Strasbourg supertram, which it won in competition with many French rail manufacturers. Price and quality at the York works now have an international reputation which will be put at risk if the York works do not get what any other exporting industry in any other country would need—that is, a base load of home production to keep it secure and on which it can build for export success.
British Rail and the Government are juggling with two orders—one for the west coast main line and one for Network SouthEast. I have called on the Government before to increase the amount of investment from the £150 million of leasing finance authorised in the autumn statement to £300 million. I repeat that bid now. If the Government want, as they say, to increase rail investment as they move towards privatisation, that increase in investment should happen. I do not want an either-or choice. Both the west coast main line and London commuters deserve a better service.
If a choice has to be made, I urge the Minister and British Rail to opt for Network SouthEast, for four reasons. First, if the contract goes to ABB, Network SouthEast trains would be wholly built in the United Kingdom. Competitors would not build a UK train—they would buy half of it, the body shell, from abroad. Secondly, the York carriage works is a centre of excellence and will close if it does not receive an order. It is as simple as that. We cannot beat about the bush; that would happen. We would lose the last base in Britain at which whole suburban trains with modern aluminium carriages are built. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Thirdly, Network SouthEast's London commuter services are clearly a public service railway. They cannot operate without Government support. The west coast main line is a commercial railway. Chris Green, the managing director of InterCity, says that it is completely commercially viable to invest in InterCity trains running from London to Manchester and further up the west coast main line. If that is the case, and if the Government are committed to private sector involvement in a privatised railway, they should give him the green light and say, "Go ahead, you have a commercial opportunity which yields a substantial return; go into partnership with the private sector, do that on your own account, and leave the Treasury-authorised £150 million for a public service, high-need railway for London commuters."
Fourthly—the hon. Member for Sevenoaks identified this point—Networkers, if used on the Kent lines, would increase the capacity of those lines by about 50 per cent. because the trains are bigger and take more passengers and

also because they accelerate more quickly than existing trains, so one can fit more train movements on a single line within an hour. That extra capacity is essential because, when the channel tunnel opens, the train paths will be needed on existing lines between the tunnel and London for several years to come. That capacity must be freed up, and the Networkers at York could do that.
In his statement on 3 June, the Minister announced that the Government were creating three passenger rolling stock companies. He said that the Government had two measures to encourage continued investment in rolling stock after privatisation: first, the £150 million which I have already mentioned and, secondly, a new clause in the Railways Bill to enable the franchising director to offer some sort of "comfort" to rail investors. I am not sure what "comfort" means. It is neither immediate nor specific. In terms of saving the York works and Britain's ability to build modern trains, an immediate and specific response is needed.
I have two sets of questions that I want to ask the Minister. The first are short-term questions relating to ABB and the York works. What will the Government do to keep the York carriage works in business so that rail travellers in Britain and the British economy will continue to benefit from British-built trains? When specifically will British Rail and the Government decide how the £150 million will be spent? When will British Rail be able to sign a contract, and when will the contractor who wins the work be able to start construction?
The second set of questions is equally important and relates to the longer term. Does the Minister agree that the country needs a strategy for rail investment and a clear programme for rolling stock renewal? Can he see a time when the railway industry in Britain will be able to plan ahead and we shall get the rolling stock necessary to meet the needs of the public, or will the Government allow the railway manufacturing industry to continue to lurch from crisis to crisis and have Members of Parliament like myself asking the House for emergency action to keep what could be a highly successful foreign exchange earning industry above water?
We have the potential for a major British engineering manufacturing success, which could be put in jeopardy. We should not be lurching from crisis to crisis. For heaven's sake, let us not let the British train manufacturing industry go the same way as the British bus manufacturing industry went after deregulation. I have nothing against Mercedes or Volvo buses—they are fine vehicles—but, they do nothing for employment in Britain or for our balance of payments. It would be a tragedy if the rail manufacturing industry were allowed to go the same way as the bus industry.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I welcome the opportunity to answer the points made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). He stoutly defended the interests of his constituents who work in the ABB factory. I pay tribute to ABB for its investment in modernising that facility. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) stoutly defended the interests of his constituents, who are passengers. I have only 11 minutes in which to answer the key points, so I will concentrate on the main issues raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley).
I regret the loss of the 532 jobs at the ABB works in York. Those redundancies cannot be blamed on the Government's proposals for the reform of the railway industry. They have a lot to do with the recession in the United Kingdom and the consequences for British Rail—British Rail is not immune from the pressures of recession and with the understandable, but optimistic, expansion plans of the industry, including ABB, over the past few years.
To answer one of the hon. Gentleman's points, I believe that Britain should have a domestic rolling stock manufacturing industry. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need that. We do not want, in five or 10 years' time, to have to rely on French or German manufacturers.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the strategy was. The strategy is perfectly clear. We want to move increasingly to the private sector assuming responsibility for design, for the placing of orders and for the financing of rolling stock for the railway industry. That is a very clear objective. It will take a number of years, because British Rail has a number of obligations that it must continue to discharge. I do not rule out British Rail or the public sector placing further orders.
It is important to step back and look at the present state of the industry. We undeniably have quite significant over-capacity, as the hon. Gentleman has been frank enough to admit in the past. The Railway Industry Association, in its publication "Beyond Future Railway", estimates that the present annual capacity of the industry is about 2,200 vehicles per annum.
Over the past five years, between 1988 and 1992, the industry has delivered to British Rail about 500 vehicles per annum. That is one quarter of the present capacity, and includes a peak year of delivery in 1990. The association's most optimistic forecast of likely orders up to the year 2000 runs at about 1,100 vehicles per annum–50 per cent. of present capacity.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that combination of circumstances has resulted in a position that does not present appealing options. As Minister for Public Transport, I accept responsibility, in working with the industry, to ensure as good a use of that capacity as possible. However, the industry will have to rely on orders coming from beyond British Rail, a point with which I shall deal in a minute.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the £150 million of special lease finance. I do not accept that as the sum total of orders that I should like to see placed in this financial year. The £150 million is not the ceiling for this year. It is not an annual figure, and it is not in British Rail's external financing limit. Undoubtedly, because it is the first major lease of its kind for rolling stock, special considerations will have to apply to the terms and conditions of the lease.
It is up to British Rail to make a decision; it is not up to Ministers to decide between the two options. There had to be two options because, at the urging of both ABB and GEC, British Rail decided to hold a competition for value for money between two run-on orders. If British Rail had decided to use the facility for a brand new design of rolling stock, it would have taken a considerable time to draft a specification and to allow industry to prepare the necessary tools and jigs for manufacture. That is not the case here.
I do not accept that there has been delay. British Rail decided on the two options to compare before Easter, as it

said it would. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a week when a conclusion will be reached; that is not within my gift. I cannot specify precisely when a conclusion will be reached. British Rail will decide on the best offer, and then, I hope, manufacture will start shortly. Once the decision has been taken—it is an invidious decision between Networkers and 225 stock—I shall immediately start work with British Rail on helping it to prepare with industry a true operating lease that meets the Treasury's criteria of a lease that does not count against public expenditure. That is a commitment that I have made.
I do not regard it as a choice for all time between the Networkers or the 225 HSTs mark 4 stock for the west coast main line.
I should like to see both manufactured in due course, but the condition is that if British Rail decides to pursue an order for the class not initially chosen, it must meet the Treasury's criteria, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, were laid out at the end of May.
I have been asked what steps the. Government are taking to facilitate the development of this leasing market, which is most important. In its latter stages, the Railways Bill was amended to allow the franchising director to designate certain new rolling stock as what are called franchise assets. The Bill now enables the franchising director to require that successive franchisees use that rolling stock. The purpose, of course, is to extend the guaranteed lease life of the asset. That is most important, because it reduces the residual value risk to the lessor.
We have taken those steps, but industry and, in particular, the private capital markets will have to accept some residual value risk. That is minimised if there is a standard design or one that does not require very much change from order to order or between the uses of rolling stock on different routes. It will be helpful if the manufacturer offers to maintain the rolling stock to a high standard and to carry out technological improvements throughout its life. I have offered to meet the Railway Industry Association, representing ABB, GEC and others, in July to discuss its views about how best to develop the leasing market for rolling stock.
I turn now to the foreign market. As I explained earlier, even if British Rail and franchisees, through the leasing market, were to meet the most optimistic forecasts of the Railway Industry Association, only about 50 per cent. of this country's current capacity would be used. Thus, foreign orders are essential to the well-being of the industry.
Within the European Community, of course, orders have to meet the requirement laid down in the utilities directive. In other words, British Rail, when it is placing orders for rolling stock of a new design, must advertise and must accept qualifying tenders from other manufacturers in the Community. That applies also to the nationalised railway undertakings in the EC. This will take time, as there are long lead periods in the placing of orders.
As for the situation outside the Community, I have to say that the market is very competitive. I congratulate the British industry on winning some excellent orders abroad in the last few years. The pressure must continue. The Government and the Department of Transport will do everything they can to help ABB and the other manufacturers.
I believe very strongly that we must introduce more long-term planning into rolling stock procurement. Assuming that the Railways Bill will be enacted, I can tell


the House that the rolling stock companies, initially under public ownership, will be set up by 1 April 1994. We want those companies to pass into private sector ownership in due course.
British Rail will very shortly appoint advisers on the reorganisation of the ownership of rolling stock and on the move from public sector ownership to private sector ownership. But RailTrack has been asked to prepare a 10-year indicative budget for infrastructure investment.
There is a good case for the franchising director and industry to work together and to look forward by up to 10 years in making provision for new rolling stock.
I look forward to the meeting that is to take place on, I believe, 6 July, when the wider issues of the railway industry will be discussed, as it relates to York, with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We need the co-operation of industry, British Rail, the franchising director and the Government in planning for the future prosperity of the rolling stock manufacturing industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past One o'clock.